The Week of May 14th, 2012
US soldier on the Afghan side of the Torkham Gate border crossing on August 19, 2007. Public domain image via Wikimedia Commons.
Care
1. Pakistan and US Discuss Supply Lines
American and Pakistani officials announced last Tuesday that their respective countries may be close to reaching a deal to reopen supply lines from Afghanistan to Pakistan that would aid NATO efforts in the region. The supply lines, also known as Pakistani Ground Lines of Communication, have been closed by Pakistani officials since an American airstrike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November. The potential agreement comes despite the fact that Pakistani legislators have demanded an apology and the cessation of American drone attacks on Pakistani soil, neither of which America has done. It also arrives after NATO extended an invitation to Pakistan to attend the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago this weekend, which Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has indicated he will attend.
The timing of the announcement on the eve of the NATO summit suggests that Pakistan is looking to use the supply lines, which previously carried up to 40 percent of NATO’s non-lethal cargo into Afghanistan, as a bargaining chip with the US and her allies. While there are alternative routes into Afghanistan available through other Central Asian countries, these paths are far more expensive and time-consuming, a fact Pakistani officials realize. Pakistan’s desire to capitalize on the situation can be seen in their demands that NATO pay for access to use the supply lines that were previously free, charging them $5000 for each shipping container and tanker that goes over its soil both in and out of Afghanistan. While the new arrangement would certainly be more costly than before, the reopening of the supply lines would no doubt be a boon to both sides, especially as international forces begin withdrawing from Afghanistan.
2. Hollande's Cabinet Picks Surprise
In the wake of his electoral victory in France last week, President-elect François Hollande has announced his choices for government ministers. In contrast to the rhetoric of Hollande's campaign – which highlighted moderate euroskepticism and resistance to austerity measures – several notable cabinet members are neither outstanding Hollande supporters, nor proponents of the more leftist positions of Hollande’s campaign.
Perhaps the most surprising cabinet choice thus far has been that of Pierre Moscovici as Minister of Finance. In contrast to Hollande's opposition to austerity measures, Moscovici has stated that the primary goal of the new government will be to reduce deficits and to cut France's high level of debt. Hollande's choice for Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, is also a moderate from the Socialist Party, the former prime minister, and one-time rival for party leadership with Hollande, who made reducing inflation the primary aim of his tenure in the mid-1980s. Other notable moderates and pro-market appointees include Michel Sapin, a former Finance Minister, as Minister for labor and employment, and the pro-German Jean-Marc Ayrault as prime minister.
This surprisingly centrist choice of cabinet has come about for several reasons. Hollande has never held a ministerial position, and so the choice of skilled technocrats with decades of experience versus ideologically-driven members of the Socialist Party makes a great deal of sense. Furthermore, the appointments of pro-market ministers of finance and labor may have spurred increased foreign investment in France, deterring capital flight that has arisen due to fears of a strong socialist government during the Eurozone crisis. But perhaps the most important reason for Hollande's moderate choices is the election itself: while Hollande was always expected to win the election, he did not win by anywhere near as high a margin as was predicted - only around two percent. Hollande's attempts to entice France's political center will be crucial to avoid a divided government after the French Senate elections in 2014.
3. Debt Limit Debate Reemerges
On Tuesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner revealed his intention to once again fight a debt limit increase, harking back to last summer’s bitter fight that ended up dealing a huge blow to the US economy and causing a credit rating downgrade for the first time in US history. The debt ceiling will need to be increased in December, only a month after presidential elections, creating a potential mess for the lame duck Congress. In addition to the debt ceiling, Congress will have to deal with the automatic spending sequester that will go into effect as part of the compromise that arose from the last debt ceiling standoff.
It seems likely that Boehner’s renewed debt ceiling threat is leverage to delay the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. Additionally, Boehner’s hardline stance reinforces the Republican policy preference regarding the economy heading into the general election. There has, however, been fighting within the Republican Party as the more radical Tea Partiers contend with the traditional party elite for dominance over the party apparatus. Nevertheless, it appears the Republican Party is beginning to coalesce as the presidential election gears up, and the consensus over economic policy, perhaps unsurprisingly, seems to be no new taxes.
4. Chinese Leadership Petition Exposes Divides
In China, a petition calling for the dismissal of two party heads has been making the rounds among retired Communist Party members, many of whom have signed it. Supported by sixteen "party elders" in the province of Yunnan, the petition condemned the actions of Bo Xilai, the Chinese leader whose Maoist rhetoric and anti-corruption campaign in Chongqing represented both the creation of a cult of personality and disintegration of the rule of law, respectively. The Party, according to the petition, must also kick out his allies: Zhou Yongkang, China's internal affairs czar, and Liu Yunshan, the head of propaganda. The text's harsh language later attracted the attention of the foreign press, some of whom see it as evidence of increased party infighting.
It is true that Zhou had good relations with Bo, and both are well known for their ruthlessness in responding to dissent. The two, along with Liu, are a dwindling clique of party leaders loyal to former party head Jiang Zemin. In writing the letter, this crew of Yunnan party elders hope to encourage the elimination of Jiang's clique altogether and end the reactionism which characterized it. Party leadership transitions have always been messy, but with the Internet and the presence of Chinese bloggers, it is easier to expose divisive relationships. By choosing to publish their petition online, voices within the Party want to shatter the leadership's facade of unity and force it to make the necessary purges.
5. Nuclear Stockpiles Under Scrutiny
Retired General James E. Cartwright, former commander of the United States nuclear forces, recently announced his support for drastic reductions in the US nuclear stockpile, joining many other military officials in the ongoing debate. The United States and Russia, the two nations with the largest nuclear arsenal, signed the New START treaty in 2010 to deal with this issue. They agreed to a timetable that limits their deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads each in coming years, but did not touch short-range or stockpiled warheads. Now, with imminent cuts to US military spending, many are calling for even greater reductions to the WMD arsenal. Cartwright’s position has favored a reduction to 900 warheads, half deployed and half stockpiled. He has also advocated ending the hair-trigger system that risks accidental nuclear conflict in favor of a system requiring 24 to 72 hours to launch a warhead. General Norton A. Schwartz, current Chief of Staff of the Air Force, has criticized Cartwright’s position, defending the importance of maintaining a robust deterrence system based on a combination of land, air, and water-based delivery systems.
Cartwright and other influential defense policy experts who advocate for these reductions speak of the changing role of the US military. With a greater focus on counter-insurgency rather than power politics rivalry, the need for a massive nuclear arsenal has been questioned. Further, impending military spending cuts make this reduction especially attractive. Cartwright’s report stated that his desired reduction would save $100 billion over the next decade. Politically, however, it is difficult to reduce deterrence capability, especially in an election year. Many, such as Mitt Romney, have pointed out that Russia and China still pose geopolitical threats to the US, yet others counter that an arsenal of 900 warheads is more than enough to deter both of these powers. Any discussions about America’s nuclear arsenal will touch on issues from government spending to defense policy.
Don’t Care
0. Evanston Condemns Citizens United Decision
The Evanston City Council decided to add their voice to the campaign finance debate last Monday, when they unanimously agreed to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This 2010 landmark decision prohibits the government from restricting political contributions from corporations and unions, and has since had great effect on the 2012 Republican primaries, and is also suffering ardent criticism for its results.
The decision opened up expansive leeway for businesses and other interests to donate large sums of money to political candidates. This announcement by the sympathetic Evanstonian municipal government, however, will effectively do little. The all-Democratic Council has joined the column of Democrats of all ranks and stations throughout the nation to rhetorically support the efforts of Democratic senators attempting to overturn this decision. However, to do so would require the approval of two thirds of state legislatures or two thirds of Congress to even propose the amendment-- an arduous task made harder by the current environment of extreme partisanship. In addition, virtually no elected Republican officials have made similar calls for an overturning of the decision, so legislative change seems very unlikely to be pursued. While the Evanston City Council’s statement was the first of its kind in Illinois, its effect is minor and entirely symbolic.