Not since they dominated the world, recognized during its "Golden Age" in the 17th Century as the foremost maritime and economic power, have the Dutch received as much attention as they did this past month. They received all this attention because the Netherlands was the first E.U. country this year to hold a national election in which a far-right populist politician had a realistic chance of winning. Populist activists throughout Europe and the U.S. wondered out loud if the trend established by the U.K. Brexit decision, Rodrigo Duterte's election in the Philippines, and Donald Trump's ascendance in the U.S. would continue in advance of the French, the German, and a possible Italian election later this year. Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom, a vocal champion of this movement, achieved recognition as its poster-child, and gained support from many hard-right political operatives. Analysts contributing to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and other major media outlets recognized the impending threat to the status quo in the E.U., and cautioned about consequences linked to its success. In a column titled: "How the Dutch Stopped Being Decent and Dull," (NYT, March 12, 2017) Ian Buruma, professor at Bard College, wrote: "What happens in the Netherlands could be a harbinger for other elections in Europe, and this also means that the future of the European Union is at stake." A month out, 77% of the electorate had yet to decide who to vote for, and three days out Wilders' party was still favored to win. When the March 15 election concluded, many in the European political establishment sighed with relief. Disaster was avoided - for now. Wilders lost and, by political standards, he lost big, only winning 20 out of 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament, well below current Prime Minister Mark Rutte's VVD party's 33.
What put him in the cross-hairs of supporters and opponents alike was his rabid stance on hard-right populist issues. He wanted to stop immigration from Muslim countries, close all mosques, ban the Quran and the burqua, and, for preventative reasons, imprison radical Muslims, even those who had not committed any crimes, while promising a "Brexit" type of referendum on the Netherlands' continued membership in the E.U.. His domestic supporters mirrored a segment of the electorate similar to that which helped elect Donald Trump in the U.S., and which pushed the U.K. to exit the Union. Within Europe Wilders was openly supported by prominent populists like Marine Le Pen in France, Frauke Petry in Germany, and Nigel Farage in the U.K.. Americans got into the act as well. David Horowitz, a home-grown right-wing activists who called Wilders the "Paul Revere of Europe," donated $150,000 to Wilders' effort - a sizable sum by Dutch standards. And Iowa Representative Steve King made news when he expressed his support for Mr. Wilders because of his stance on immigrants, saying that civilizations can't be restored with "somebody else's babies." Aside from overtly expressed support, Dutch officials continued to be fearful of surreptitious meddling by Russian operatives.
Even if Wilders' party had ended up winning the most seats, it was extremely unlikely that he would have become the next Prime Minister. All of the establishment parties had pledged not to work with him. Since the Dutch system is based on proportional representation, no party has ever won the majority outright. Coalition government is inevitable. Any party winning 0.67% of the vote - 1/150 of all votes cast - will secure one seat. Thirty parties participated in the recent election, some very much on the fringe. Labels like: "Party For Animals;" "Jesus Lives;" "Think!;" and the "Non Voters" are not unusual in the Dutch idiosyncratic system. Of these 13 gained seats. Ultimately Prime Minister Mark Rutte's platform, touting the country's economic stability under his People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, and the European Commission's forecast that the Dutch economy was projected to grow steadily at 2% this year, outperforming the E.U. as a whole, won out with he most, be it unexpected.
While some may zoom in on the fact that the hard-right populists were unsuccessful this time around, few analysts are predicting similar outcomes elsewhere in Europe later this year. Some media outlets suggested that the Dutch vote set the tone for Europe. However, Wilders' loss is only part of the story. The populists still control the narrative. To defeat the insurgency Mr. Rutte was forced to relinquish his "centrist" position on the political spectrum, and move further to the right. His strategy to beat back populism included co-opting it. He liked to say that Wilders' type of populism was the "wrong kind of populism." But it is clear that, because of the populist threat, much of the European electorate has moved further to the right. It has become more acceptable to be against Islam, Muslims and immigration.
One of the biggest shifts at the polls was the "collapse of the once powerful Labor Party, which won less that 6% of the vote, compared with 25% in the 2012 parliamentary elections." (Marcus Walker, Wall Street Journal). One of the big stories is that the top three political parties in the Netherlands, which won 85% of the total in 1985, and 74% in 2003, only collected 45% of the seats this year. The traditional left-right axis, with the communists and the socialists on the left, conservatives and capitalists on the right, bridged by moderate centrists, is going away. In the Netherlands "Labor" is in shambles, in the U.K. it is in turmoil, and in France the Socialists have become irrelevant. Smaller parties are flourishing and unstable coalitions are becoming the norm all over Europe. The main issues have shifted from the economy to immigration, E.U. membership, crime, security, national identity and globalization.
During the run-up to the election, Geert Wilders predicted that his exclusion from power would start a revolution. Establishment parties may have won the battle this time. However, the war is far from over. Some will claim that the "revolution" is still picking up speed.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
WHILE COVER-UP UNRAVELS, WATERGATE RESURFACES
The White House is in turmoil. Politicians from both parties and media of all stripes seem more focused on rumored Trump campaign contacts with Russia than on policy. The question heard all over Washington is the same one former Senator Howard Baker asked in 1973: "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"
Much of what is going on today resembles what happened during "Watergate." The Trump White House consistently denied that there was any contact between its operatives and members of the Russian government. On March 3, USA Today listed 21 denials members of the Trump team used when denying that any contacts took place. Nevertheless, on February 13 National Security Advisor Michael Flynn "resigned" for lying about is discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisliak..
On March 2, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, accused of lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his meetings with the same ambassador, recused himself from investigations involving contacts between the Trump team and Russia. A few days later several other team members, including Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, were identified as having been involved as well.
In the meantime the administration appears to have developed palpable paranoia, showing greater concern about the leaks of information, than about the substance of the investigation. Finally, last week the president accused his predecessor of committing a felony by tapping is phone, which caused the director of the FBI to ask the Justice Department to tell the president to stop lying.
As this political melodrama continues to unfold, it may be useful to review the chronology of events that surrounded the Watergate scandal. Much of the following was first reported by the Washington Post:
* June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins printing the "Pentagon Papers" released earlier by former defense analyst Daniel Elsberg.
* Sept. 9, 1971: The White House "Plumbers," a covert special investigations unit established July 24, 1971 during Richard Nixon's presidency tasked with stopping leaks of classified information, burglarizes Elsberg's psychiatrist's office.
* June 17, 1972: Five men are arrested trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel and office complex.
* June 19, 1972: Reports surface that a GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars. Former Attorney General John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any complicity in the operation.
* Aug. 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, earmarked for the Nixon campaign, ended up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar.
*Sept. 29, 1972: The Post reports that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance a wide-spread intelligence gathering operation against the Democrats.
* Oct. 10, 1972: A Post article asserts that the Watergate break-in stemmed from a massive political spying and sabotage campaign conducted on behalf of the Nixon re-election effort.
* Nov. 11, 1972: Nixon re-elected in a landslide , crushing Democratic nominee George McGovern of South Dakota.
* Jan. 30, 1973: Former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. convicted of conspiracy and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five others plead guilty.
* April 30, 1973: Top White House staffers H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.
* May 18, 1973: Senate Watergate Committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General Elliot Richardson taps former Solicitor General Archibald Cox to be Special Prosecutor.
* June 3, 1973: John Dean tells Watergate investigators that he discussed the cover-up with Nixon at least 35 times.
* June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo to John Ehrlichman describing Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's break-in in great detail.
* July 13, 1973: Former White House aide Alexander Butterfield tells Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon, since 1971, has recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his office.
* July 18, 1973: Nixon orders White House taping system disconnected.
* July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tape recordings to the Watergate Committee.
* Oct. 20, 1973: Saturday night massacre - Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resign.
* Dec 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes.
* April 30, 1974: White House releases more than 1,200 edited transcripts of Nixon tapes. Committee insists that the actual tapes must be turned over.
* July 24, 1974: Supreme Court unanimously rejects Nixon's claim of executive privilege, and directs that the White House must turn over tape recordings of presidential conversations.
* July 27, 1974: The House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.
* August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. President to resign his office.
None of this is intended to suggest that the current investigation will lead to a similar outcome. The party in power controls the scope and intensity of the inquiry. Impeachment, after all, tends to be more political than strictly constitutional.
Much of what is going on today resembles what happened during "Watergate." The Trump White House consistently denied that there was any contact between its operatives and members of the Russian government. On March 3, USA Today listed 21 denials members of the Trump team used when denying that any contacts took place. Nevertheless, on February 13 National Security Advisor Michael Flynn "resigned" for lying about is discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kisliak..
On March 2, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, accused of lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his meetings with the same ambassador, recused himself from investigations involving contacts between the Trump team and Russia. A few days later several other team members, including Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, were identified as having been involved as well.
In the meantime the administration appears to have developed palpable paranoia, showing greater concern about the leaks of information, than about the substance of the investigation. Finally, last week the president accused his predecessor of committing a felony by tapping is phone, which caused the director of the FBI to ask the Justice Department to tell the president to stop lying.
As this political melodrama continues to unfold, it may be useful to review the chronology of events that surrounded the Watergate scandal. Much of the following was first reported by the Washington Post:
* June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins printing the "Pentagon Papers" released earlier by former defense analyst Daniel Elsberg.
* Sept. 9, 1971: The White House "Plumbers," a covert special investigations unit established July 24, 1971 during Richard Nixon's presidency tasked with stopping leaks of classified information, burglarizes Elsberg's psychiatrist's office.
* June 17, 1972: Five men are arrested trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel and office complex.
* June 19, 1972: Reports surface that a GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars. Former Attorney General John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any complicity in the operation.
* Aug. 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, earmarked for the Nixon campaign, ended up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar.
*Sept. 29, 1972: The Post reports that John Mitchell, while serving as Attorney General, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance a wide-spread intelligence gathering operation against the Democrats.
* Oct. 10, 1972: A Post article asserts that the Watergate break-in stemmed from a massive political spying and sabotage campaign conducted on behalf of the Nixon re-election effort.
* Nov. 11, 1972: Nixon re-elected in a landslide , crushing Democratic nominee George McGovern of South Dakota.
* Jan. 30, 1973: Former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. convicted of conspiracy and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five others plead guilty.
* April 30, 1973: Top White House staffers H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.
* May 18, 1973: Senate Watergate Committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General Elliot Richardson taps former Solicitor General Archibald Cox to be Special Prosecutor.
* June 3, 1973: John Dean tells Watergate investigators that he discussed the cover-up with Nixon at least 35 times.
* June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo to John Ehrlichman describing Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's break-in in great detail.
* July 13, 1973: Former White House aide Alexander Butterfield tells Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon, since 1971, has recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his office.
* July 18, 1973: Nixon orders White House taping system disconnected.
* July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over presidential tape recordings to the Watergate Committee.
* Oct. 20, 1973: Saturday night massacre - Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resign.
* Dec 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes.
* April 30, 1974: White House releases more than 1,200 edited transcripts of Nixon tapes. Committee insists that the actual tapes must be turned over.
* July 24, 1974: Supreme Court unanimously rejects Nixon's claim of executive privilege, and directs that the White House must turn over tape recordings of presidential conversations.
* July 27, 1974: The House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.
* August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. President to resign his office.
None of this is intended to suggest that the current investigation will lead to a similar outcome. The party in power controls the scope and intensity of the inquiry. Impeachment, after all, tends to be more political than strictly constitutional.
Saturday, March 11, 2017
ARE DEMOCRACIES BECOMING ILLIBERAL?
Most of us grew up convinced that a democratic form of government is preferred over any other system out there, and many believe naively that all democracies are alike. We tend to equate democracy with freedom, and whenever we hear of anti-government demonstrations in other countries we instinctively assume that the demonstrators aspire to change their system of government to a democratic one - one just like ours.
The facts are that not all democracies are alike, that democratic traditions have evolved over time, and that even our founding fathers were very critical of democracy in its purest form. John Adam was quoted as saying that "remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders
itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Benjamin Franklin thought that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." And Libertarian Ron Paul opined that: "The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this."
Our founders designed a republican form of government, incorporating public participation in selecting leaders with a system of checks and balances to control dominance by any one center of power. During the early years, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, James Madison produced the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which listed specific prohibitions on governmental power. These rights, like freedom of speech, religion, belief, property ownership, assembly and dissent, roughly based on the Magna Carta, a charter agreed upon between King John and his barons in England in 1215, were institutionalized, and did not only protect us against the abuse of a tyrant, but also from democratic majorities. In most western countries that adopted some form of democratic government, the protection of basic liberties became intertwined with the electoral system and became what we now refer to as a "liberal democracy."
More than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies - regimes in which political parties compete and come to power in regularly scheduled elections. This is up from 40 percent in the late 1980s. However, not all of these democracies continue to provide equal protection under the law. While many started out by guaranteeing liberties to their citizens, in some cases even enshrining these protections in constitutions or basic laws, in an increasing number of countries individual freedoms are disappearing.
In some, like the old Soviet Union, a democratic system was proclaimed, even to the point of literally copying our Constitution. In reality its "democracy" only resembled the liberal variety and never lived up to its promise. In countries like Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Iraq and the Philippines a "democratic shell" remains, meaning that elections do take place, but the elected governments manage to change relevant laws eliminating many of the freedoms we have become accustomed to, ignoring constitutional limits on their power while concentrating most if not all political power in the executive, legitimized by claims of support by the majority party. These countries have in fact become "illiberal."
Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton peace accords, on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, lamented: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That's the dilemma." (Fareed Zakaria, "Doubts about Democracy," Newsweek, Dec. 28, 1997.}
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria who as far back as 1997 articulated his concerns about the trend towards illiberal democracy in a growing number of countries is now projecting that we may be on track to experience something similar in our country. He believes that what sustains democracy is not simply legal safeguards and rules, but norms and practices. In other words democratic behavior, and he suggests that our culture of liberal democracy is waning. According to Zakaria our political parties have collapsed, and have become "mere vessels for whoever wins the primaries. Congress has caved, professional groups have become largely toothless, and the media has been rendered irrelevant." ("America's democracy has become illiberal," Washington Post, Dec. 29, 016).
From the President's assertion that the media only produces "fake news," to his senior advisor's proclamation that there is "no such thing as judicial supremacy," and that "what the judges did is take power away that belongs squarely in the hands of the President of the United States," when reacting to the 9th Circuit Court's decision to deny lifting a temporary restraining order on the administration's travel ban, we ought to stay alert and resist descending into the same abyss many other countries are falling into.
The facts are that not all democracies are alike, that democratic traditions have evolved over time, and that even our founding fathers were very critical of democracy in its purest form. John Adam was quoted as saying that "remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders
itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Benjamin Franklin thought that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." And Libertarian Ron Paul opined that: "The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this."
Our founders designed a republican form of government, incorporating public participation in selecting leaders with a system of checks and balances to control dominance by any one center of power. During the early years, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, James Madison produced the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which listed specific prohibitions on governmental power. These rights, like freedom of speech, religion, belief, property ownership, assembly and dissent, roughly based on the Magna Carta, a charter agreed upon between King John and his barons in England in 1215, were institutionalized, and did not only protect us against the abuse of a tyrant, but also from democratic majorities. In most western countries that adopted some form of democratic government, the protection of basic liberties became intertwined with the electoral system and became what we now refer to as a "liberal democracy."
More than 60 percent of the world's countries are electoral democracies - regimes in which political parties compete and come to power in regularly scheduled elections. This is up from 40 percent in the late 1980s. However, not all of these democracies continue to provide equal protection under the law. While many started out by guaranteeing liberties to their citizens, in some cases even enshrining these protections in constitutions or basic laws, in an increasing number of countries individual freedoms are disappearing.
In some, like the old Soviet Union, a democratic system was proclaimed, even to the point of literally copying our Constitution. In reality its "democracy" only resembled the liberal variety and never lived up to its promise. In countries like Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Iraq and the Philippines a "democratic shell" remains, meaning that elections do take place, but the elected governments manage to change relevant laws eliminating many of the freedoms we have become accustomed to, ignoring constitutional limits on their power while concentrating most if not all political power in the executive, legitimized by claims of support by the majority party. These countries have in fact become "illiberal."
Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton peace accords, on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, lamented: "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That's the dilemma." (Fareed Zakaria, "Doubts about Democracy," Newsweek, Dec. 28, 1997.}
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria who as far back as 1997 articulated his concerns about the trend towards illiberal democracy in a growing number of countries is now projecting that we may be on track to experience something similar in our country. He believes that what sustains democracy is not simply legal safeguards and rules, but norms and practices. In other words democratic behavior, and he suggests that our culture of liberal democracy is waning. According to Zakaria our political parties have collapsed, and have become "mere vessels for whoever wins the primaries. Congress has caved, professional groups have become largely toothless, and the media has been rendered irrelevant." ("America's democracy has become illiberal," Washington Post, Dec. 29, 016).
From the President's assertion that the media only produces "fake news," to his senior advisor's proclamation that there is "no such thing as judicial supremacy," and that "what the judges did is take power away that belongs squarely in the hands of the President of the United States," when reacting to the 9th Circuit Court's decision to deny lifting a temporary restraining order on the administration's travel ban, we ought to stay alert and resist descending into the same abyss many other countries are falling into.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
MASS DEPORTATION - POPULIST DREAM, FISCAL INSANITY
During his campaign for President, Donald Trump's stump speeches almost always included his intent to "enhance" border security and deport all undocumented immigrants currently in the country. In June of 2015 he told his audience that he "would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, and I build them very inexpensively." A few months later he announced that he would deport all 11 million illegal immigrants, claiming to be able to do this within 18 months to 2 years. (Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2015). A year later he reiterated his intent, and doubled down on his deportation plans, proclaiming: "There will be no amnesty." (CNN, September 1, 2016). On January 25 President Trump signed executive orders to start building the wall, create more detention space for illegal immigrants, and to boost the deportation force, boasting that he is fulfilling a promise made to his political base. Since he is a self-proclaimed successful business man, it seems odd that Mr. Trump apparently spent little time calculating the fiscal consequences of his grandiose scheme.
The financial consequences are staggering. The American Action Forum, a conservative leaning Washington think tank which analyzed Trump's plans, in a study titled: "The Labor and Output Declines from Removing all Undocumented Immigrants," (May 5, 2016), uncovered some eye-popping statistics. Its analysis concluded that, in the broad economy, private-sector output would be reduced by roughly $380 billion to $680 billion - with the largest contractions in the farming and construction industries. Taken at face value, the labor force would shrink by about 5%, the equivalent of removing all the workers from both North and South Carolina. Another report, produced by the Center for American Progress, projected that California could lose $100 billion of its GDP, Texas $60 billion, and New Jersey $25 billion. All but 5 U.S. states would see at least a 1% of their GDP each year. ("The Economic Impact of Removing Unauthorized Immigrant Workers," September 21, 2016). Add to these numbers the actual cost of erecting that "beautiful wall," which pencils out closer to $25 billion, instead of the $10 billion to $15 billion our politicians prefer to project, and the annual reduction in U.S. GDP will be about $1 trillion, just a hair below the total GDP of Mexico. (Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2016).
Moreover, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that undocumented immigrants contribute about $11.6 billion in taxes each year. Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total U.S. workforce. Undocumented workers occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just 4% of the total homes in the U.S.. UCLA research indicates that immigrants produce $15 billion of economic activity every year. Since nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, it projects that approximately 8 million U.S. jobs are dependent on economic activity produced by illegal immigrants in the U.S. . (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Real Earnings," 2011), and (UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, "Labor Market
Impacts of Amnesty.")
In addition, the logistics involved in executing this "project" are tremendously challenging. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has the capacity to remove roughly 400,000 people per year. Deporting more than 11 million people within two years would mean boosting the ICE's ranks from the current 5,000 workers devoted to apprehending undocumented immigrants to more than 90,000. Not only that, a recent study projects that it would take 32,000 new immigration attorneys to process cases, hundreds of thousands
of extra detention beds, 17,000 chartered airplane flights, and 30,000 bus trips each year.
None of this is intended to suggest that border security is not a legitimate concern. It is. So is considering the consequences of pursuing ill-considered policies solely intended to placate a political
base. Popular opinion does not develop in a vacuum. Our populist base believes whatever politicians taking advantage of its fears and disgruntlement feed it. Roughly 40% of all undocumented workers in this country are illegal because they overstay their visas. Although Mexico is still the dominant source of illegal immigration, its contribution has declined to around 52%, while unauthorized immigration from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa has significantly increased. (The Pew Research Center, "Hispanic Trends," September 20, 2016). Undocumented workers do not take American jobs away. In fact, deporting unauthorized immigrants will have an adverse effect on economic activity, and leads to reducing job opportunities for legal citizens. Immigrants, illegal, undocumented, unauthorized, or whatever anyone wants to call them, contribute substantially to our economy. It is time to change the conversation. Our politicians, especially those who feel compelled to support our President in whatever he suggests, need to decide to what extent they will support a likely ineffective deportation policy, a populist pipe dream which is politically popular, or come back to earth to fiscal sanity.
The financial consequences are staggering. The American Action Forum, a conservative leaning Washington think tank which analyzed Trump's plans, in a study titled: "The Labor and Output Declines from Removing all Undocumented Immigrants," (May 5, 2016), uncovered some eye-popping statistics. Its analysis concluded that, in the broad economy, private-sector output would be reduced by roughly $380 billion to $680 billion - with the largest contractions in the farming and construction industries. Taken at face value, the labor force would shrink by about 5%, the equivalent of removing all the workers from both North and South Carolina. Another report, produced by the Center for American Progress, projected that California could lose $100 billion of its GDP, Texas $60 billion, and New Jersey $25 billion. All but 5 U.S. states would see at least a 1% of their GDP each year. ("The Economic Impact of Removing Unauthorized Immigrant Workers," September 21, 2016). Add to these numbers the actual cost of erecting that "beautiful wall," which pencils out closer to $25 billion, instead of the $10 billion to $15 billion our politicians prefer to project, and the annual reduction in U.S. GDP will be about $1 trillion, just a hair below the total GDP of Mexico. (Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2016).
Moreover, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that undocumented immigrants contribute about $11.6 billion in taxes each year. Economic activity produced by illegal immigrant spending employs about 5% of the total U.S. workforce. Undocumented workers occupy over 3 million dwellings, or just 4% of the total homes in the U.S.. UCLA research indicates that immigrants produce $15 billion of economic activity every year. Since nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, it projects that approximately 8 million U.S. jobs are dependent on economic activity produced by illegal immigrants in the U.S. . (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Real Earnings," 2011), and (UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, "Labor Market
Impacts of Amnesty.")
In addition, the logistics involved in executing this "project" are tremendously challenging. Currently, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division has the capacity to remove roughly 400,000 people per year. Deporting more than 11 million people within two years would mean boosting the ICE's ranks from the current 5,000 workers devoted to apprehending undocumented immigrants to more than 90,000. Not only that, a recent study projects that it would take 32,000 new immigration attorneys to process cases, hundreds of thousands
of extra detention beds, 17,000 chartered airplane flights, and 30,000 bus trips each year.
None of this is intended to suggest that border security is not a legitimate concern. It is. So is considering the consequences of pursuing ill-considered policies solely intended to placate a political
base. Popular opinion does not develop in a vacuum. Our populist base believes whatever politicians taking advantage of its fears and disgruntlement feed it. Roughly 40% of all undocumented workers in this country are illegal because they overstay their visas. Although Mexico is still the dominant source of illegal immigration, its contribution has declined to around 52%, while unauthorized immigration from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa has significantly increased. (The Pew Research Center, "Hispanic Trends," September 20, 2016). Undocumented workers do not take American jobs away. In fact, deporting unauthorized immigrants will have an adverse effect on economic activity, and leads to reducing job opportunities for legal citizens. Immigrants, illegal, undocumented, unauthorized, or whatever anyone wants to call them, contribute substantially to our economy. It is time to change the conversation. Our politicians, especially those who feel compelled to support our President in whatever he suggests, need to decide to what extent they will support a likely ineffective deportation policy, a populist pipe dream which is politically popular, or come back to earth to fiscal sanity.
Friday, January 27, 2017
OBAMACARE - COMMUNITIES RESPOND TO "REPEAL AND REPLACE"
Ever since Congress adopted the Affordable Care Act Republicans have been committed to repealing it. In fact, many party members up for re-election successfully employed the mantra "repeal and replace Obamacare" during their campaigns. Now that they have a majority in both houses and a President in the White House, Republicans face the daunting prospect of needing to deliver. They are finding out that it is much easier to make bold political promises than it is to follow thru on them, and that replacing an intricate framework for one-sixth of the economy is easier said than done. Lousise Radnofsky, writing in the Wall Street Journal, summarized the conundrum as follows: "Republicans are caught between competing forces: a desire to take bold steps in remaking health care along conservative lines, and the political restrictions that come with a six-year old law that is already entwined through the American health system." She also published the results of a new Wall Street Journal/ NBC New poll that finds that right now 45% of Americans think that the health law is "a good idea," for the first time out-polling those who dislike the law.
During a recent interview, President Trump announced that he has a plan that will simultaneously repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He has just been waiting for his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed. (Under pointed questioning from senators considering his nomination, Dr. Price admitted that he was unaware of such a plan). To kick-start the process, Trump's first executive order directed government agencies to scale back as many aspects of ACA as possible. Meanwhile both the House and the Senate approved budget resolutions that would allow Republicans to repeal the tax and spending provisions of ACA with simple majority votes, bypassing a possible Democratic filibuster. House Speaker Paul Ryan referred to these as part of a "rescue mission."
Although the mechanism for "repeal" much of the law was agreed upon, proposals on how to replace what is taken away are nowhere near complete. Some have advocated for repeal, and delay implementation to some date beyond the next election cycle, which is two years away. This strategy was suggested, in part, because they really don't agree on how to proceed, and partially because many Republicans have serious concerns about political fall-out during the upcoming mid-term elections. An estimated 22 million Americans who gained coverage under ACA could lose their insurance. Many more have pre-existing health conditions insurers were able to deny coverage for, or who were charged excess premiums prior to ACA. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion prompted by the law will not only remove millions of low-income Americans from their insurance coverage, by converting the program to so-called "block grants" to the states will effectively eliminate it as an entitlement. The American Hospital Association estimates that during the 2018-2026 period hospital operating costs will increase by $400 billion. And, on top of these and other disturbing statistics, budget conscious legislator point out that, during the next ten years , a suitable replacement for Obamacare will add an estimated $9.7 trillion to the national debt.
Given that the discussion in Washington has turned into a political circus lacking a safety net, communities across the country are attempting to anticipate the consequences of repeal, and are constructing responses. A few weeks ago I became aware of one of these efforts in a community not far from Seattle, Washington. Its key health advocate expressed the group's mindset as follows:
"In a rural county of 33,000 people, I am helping to organize a network of community health advocates. The goal is to support our neighbors in wellness. That means helping people learn about health resources, access care and have a health plan that is adequate and affordable. Two groups are key to this organizing effort: a resource team of individuals with experience in education and care; and an outreach team with representation from a broad base of community and neighborhood organizations. Our aim is to provide basic training and information for as many local groups as possible throughout the county, so that each will have their own community health advocate. Two examples: A volunteer health advocate is available each week at the town food bank, and volunteer community health advocates are serving in congregations to assists individuals who have unmet medical and mental needs. We are reaching out to senior groups, social service programs, voluntary organizations of all kinds, small businesses, parents and student groups, recreational programs and cultural groups.
Since both political parties have an important role to play in our health conversations, I am also interested in how, with the help of the local Republican and Democratic organizations, community health advocates could be made available in every precinct in the county.
Wellbeing is not simply an individual matter. When we are ill we need the support of others. Very few of us can afford to save or bear the cost of care for an accident, a long-term illness or a chronic condition. None of us alone have all the knowledge we need to lead healthy lives. Healing and wholeness involves encouraging relationships with others, the help of family and friends, and the support of the wider community."
The principal organizers of this effort are hard at work developing a structure that will allow them to replicate successes across their county, and ultimately across the country. Perhaps our politicians should stop their ideological grand-standing, and consider elements from attempts designed to offset the anticipated changes people are worried about.
During a recent interview, President Trump announced that he has a plan that will simultaneously repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. He has just been waiting for his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed. (Under pointed questioning from senators considering his nomination, Dr. Price admitted that he was unaware of such a plan). To kick-start the process, Trump's first executive order directed government agencies to scale back as many aspects of ACA as possible. Meanwhile both the House and the Senate approved budget resolutions that would allow Republicans to repeal the tax and spending provisions of ACA with simple majority votes, bypassing a possible Democratic filibuster. House Speaker Paul Ryan referred to these as part of a "rescue mission."
Although the mechanism for "repeal" much of the law was agreed upon, proposals on how to replace what is taken away are nowhere near complete. Some have advocated for repeal, and delay implementation to some date beyond the next election cycle, which is two years away. This strategy was suggested, in part, because they really don't agree on how to proceed, and partially because many Republicans have serious concerns about political fall-out during the upcoming mid-term elections. An estimated 22 million Americans who gained coverage under ACA could lose their insurance. Many more have pre-existing health conditions insurers were able to deny coverage for, or who were charged excess premiums prior to ACA. Repeal of the Medicaid expansion prompted by the law will not only remove millions of low-income Americans from their insurance coverage, by converting the program to so-called "block grants" to the states will effectively eliminate it as an entitlement. The American Hospital Association estimates that during the 2018-2026 period hospital operating costs will increase by $400 billion. And, on top of these and other disturbing statistics, budget conscious legislator point out that, during the next ten years , a suitable replacement for Obamacare will add an estimated $9.7 trillion to the national debt.
Given that the discussion in Washington has turned into a political circus lacking a safety net, communities across the country are attempting to anticipate the consequences of repeal, and are constructing responses. A few weeks ago I became aware of one of these efforts in a community not far from Seattle, Washington. Its key health advocate expressed the group's mindset as follows:
"In a rural county of 33,000 people, I am helping to organize a network of community health advocates. The goal is to support our neighbors in wellness. That means helping people learn about health resources, access care and have a health plan that is adequate and affordable. Two groups are key to this organizing effort: a resource team of individuals with experience in education and care; and an outreach team with representation from a broad base of community and neighborhood organizations. Our aim is to provide basic training and information for as many local groups as possible throughout the county, so that each will have their own community health advocate. Two examples: A volunteer health advocate is available each week at the town food bank, and volunteer community health advocates are serving in congregations to assists individuals who have unmet medical and mental needs. We are reaching out to senior groups, social service programs, voluntary organizations of all kinds, small businesses, parents and student groups, recreational programs and cultural groups.
Since both political parties have an important role to play in our health conversations, I am also interested in how, with the help of the local Republican and Democratic organizations, community health advocates could be made available in every precinct in the county.
Wellbeing is not simply an individual matter. When we are ill we need the support of others. Very few of us can afford to save or bear the cost of care for an accident, a long-term illness or a chronic condition. None of us alone have all the knowledge we need to lead healthy lives. Healing and wholeness involves encouraging relationships with others, the help of family and friends, and the support of the wider community."
The principal organizers of this effort are hard at work developing a structure that will allow them to replicate successes across their county, and ultimately across the country. Perhaps our politicians should stop their ideological grand-standing, and consider elements from attempts designed to offset the anticipated changes people are worried about.
Monday, January 16, 2017
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
On January 6, American intelligence officials published a declassified version of a report on Russian hacking. It concluded that, in 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign aimed at the US presidential election." Their assessment was that the Russian government developed "a clear preference for President-Elect Trump." Trump did not endorse these conclusions, but he did commit to task his administration with "devising a new plan to aggressively combat and stop cyber attacks."
Although the conclusions generated by this intelligence report had been public for many weeks, they were aggressively challenged by the incoming administration. However, most of our allies have been well aware of Kremlin attempts to re-shape anti-Russia, pro-America policy positions. While absorbing condemnation for annexing Crimea, suffering from punishing economic sanctions assessed by a unified European Union, guided and supported by the US, and facing what he considers a stranglehold on Russia's "sphere of influence" by a NATO alliance intent on constructing a missile defense system on its doorstep in Romania and Poland, Vladimir Putin actively, and often openly, strategized to divide and neuter the Western alliance. In a rapidly evolving political landscape, Mr. Putin's multi-level attempt appears to be bearing fruit.
Putin's approach involves the use of, both, pre- and post-Soviet methods. A case in point, reminiscent of cold-war antics, is that of Czech Republic President Milos Zeman. Zeman was Prime Minister from 1998 - 2002. He brought the Czech Republic into the EU, but lost his 2003 presidential bid, and retired. During subsequent years Mr. Zeman was actively courted by Russian operatives. He attempted a comeback in 2013, and won the presidency in an election campaign which, opponents charged, was financed by the Kremlin. Time and influence managed to dramatically change Mr. Zeman's political ideas, converting him from being a dominantly pro-Western and pro-EU politician to one openly favoring Russian interests and opposing the EU. In 2015 he even called for a Czechzit referendum to withdraw from the European Union. (Neil MacFarquhar, "How Russians Pay to Play in Other Countries," New York Times, December 30, 2016.)
Post Soviet infiltration methods include directly, and openly, financing political parties sympathetic to the Russian cause. In 2014, France's "National Front" received a $10.6 million loan from the Russian controlled First Czech Russian National Bank to help support its presidential campaign. This was said to be the first installment of a $42 million dollar loan. NF founder Jean-Marie Le Pen received a $2.65 million loan from a Cyprus based bank owned by a former KGB agent. Hungary secured a $10.8 billion Russian investment to finance expansion of a nuclear power plant that produces 40% of the country's electricity. Political observers suggest that this was not just a financial transaction. It appears to have been intended to buy influence, and pump money into the Hungarian economy in advance of the 2018 election campaign of pro-Russia, Eurosceptic, populist President Viktor Orban. Other instances of Russian financial support of right-wing opposition parties are widely suspected, but scarcely admitted.
It is clear that not all efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity emanate from Moscow. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values "who has challenged US influence and the idea of "Europe" in a way that mirrors its own convictions." (Alina Polyakova, "Strange Bedfellows: Putin and Europe's Far Right," World Affairs, September/ October 2014.) On the political left many of the insurgents are attracted to Russia's antipathy towards globalization and its challenge to the US dominated international capitalist order. ("Putin's Friends in Europe," European Council on Foreign Affairs, October 19, 2016.) "National Front" leader Marine Le Pen refers to Putin as someone who "does what is good for Russia and the Russians." Nigel Farage of the "UK Independence Party" goes a step further describing Putin as "a brilliant strategist who can outwit the West." Of all world leaders he admires Putin the most. Le Pen considers the sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea "American meddling in European affairs." She is not alone. Francois Fillon, the center-right candidate who will likely compete with her for the French presidency this coming May, argues for rapprochement with Russia as well. He opposes continuing the sanctions. Given that the EU requires unanimity among all its members if it wants to renew these when they expire next June, chances are excellent that Putin's courting of Europe' populist fringe is paying dividends.
It appears unlikely that the US will continue to take the lead in countering Russia's influence peddling. President-Elect Trump, Putin's favorite candidate, has openly supported the Russian leader. He characterized Putin's New York Times op-ed in 2013, ripping into the notion of American exceptionalism, as "a masterpiece." He denied that Putin assassinated opponents, saying that he "had not seen that. However,, if he did, that could be forgiven. At least, he is a leader." He celebrated Brexit, denounced NATO, and continues to insist that the Russians did not attempt to influence our 2016 election. One can only hope that, once he ascends to the White House, he will recognize that Mr. Putin's overtures are not designed to be benevolent. They are intended to change the political landscape in Russia's favor.
Although the conclusions generated by this intelligence report had been public for many weeks, they were aggressively challenged by the incoming administration. However, most of our allies have been well aware of Kremlin attempts to re-shape anti-Russia, pro-America policy positions. While absorbing condemnation for annexing Crimea, suffering from punishing economic sanctions assessed by a unified European Union, guided and supported by the US, and facing what he considers a stranglehold on Russia's "sphere of influence" by a NATO alliance intent on constructing a missile defense system on its doorstep in Romania and Poland, Vladimir Putin actively, and often openly, strategized to divide and neuter the Western alliance. In a rapidly evolving political landscape, Mr. Putin's multi-level attempt appears to be bearing fruit.
Putin's approach involves the use of, both, pre- and post-Soviet methods. A case in point, reminiscent of cold-war antics, is that of Czech Republic President Milos Zeman. Zeman was Prime Minister from 1998 - 2002. He brought the Czech Republic into the EU, but lost his 2003 presidential bid, and retired. During subsequent years Mr. Zeman was actively courted by Russian operatives. He attempted a comeback in 2013, and won the presidency in an election campaign which, opponents charged, was financed by the Kremlin. Time and influence managed to dramatically change Mr. Zeman's political ideas, converting him from being a dominantly pro-Western and pro-EU politician to one openly favoring Russian interests and opposing the EU. In 2015 he even called for a Czechzit referendum to withdraw from the European Union. (Neil MacFarquhar, "How Russians Pay to Play in Other Countries," New York Times, December 30, 2016.)
Post Soviet infiltration methods include directly, and openly, financing political parties sympathetic to the Russian cause. In 2014, France's "National Front" received a $10.6 million loan from the Russian controlled First Czech Russian National Bank to help support its presidential campaign. This was said to be the first installment of a $42 million dollar loan. NF founder Jean-Marie Le Pen received a $2.65 million loan from a Cyprus based bank owned by a former KGB agent. Hungary secured a $10.8 billion Russian investment to finance expansion of a nuclear power plant that produces 40% of the country's electricity. Political observers suggest that this was not just a financial transaction. It appears to have been intended to buy influence, and pump money into the Hungarian economy in advance of the 2018 election campaign of pro-Russia, Eurosceptic, populist President Viktor Orban. Other instances of Russian financial support of right-wing opposition parties are widely suspected, but scarcely admitted.
It is clear that not all efforts to unpick the fabric of European unity emanate from Moscow. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values "who has challenged US influence and the idea of "Europe" in a way that mirrors its own convictions." (Alina Polyakova, "Strange Bedfellows: Putin and Europe's Far Right," World Affairs, September/ October 2014.) On the political left many of the insurgents are attracted to Russia's antipathy towards globalization and its challenge to the US dominated international capitalist order. ("Putin's Friends in Europe," European Council on Foreign Affairs, October 19, 2016.) "National Front" leader Marine Le Pen refers to Putin as someone who "does what is good for Russia and the Russians." Nigel Farage of the "UK Independence Party" goes a step further describing Putin as "a brilliant strategist who can outwit the West." Of all world leaders he admires Putin the most. Le Pen considers the sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its annexation of Crimea "American meddling in European affairs." She is not alone. Francois Fillon, the center-right candidate who will likely compete with her for the French presidency this coming May, argues for rapprochement with Russia as well. He opposes continuing the sanctions. Given that the EU requires unanimity among all its members if it wants to renew these when they expire next June, chances are excellent that Putin's courting of Europe' populist fringe is paying dividends.
It appears unlikely that the US will continue to take the lead in countering Russia's influence peddling. President-Elect Trump, Putin's favorite candidate, has openly supported the Russian leader. He characterized Putin's New York Times op-ed in 2013, ripping into the notion of American exceptionalism, as "a masterpiece." He denied that Putin assassinated opponents, saying that he "had not seen that. However,, if he did, that could be forgiven. At least, he is a leader." He celebrated Brexit, denounced NATO, and continues to insist that the Russians did not attempt to influence our 2016 election. One can only hope that, once he ascends to the White House, he will recognize that Mr. Putin's overtures are not designed to be benevolent. They are intended to change the political landscape in Russia's favor.
Monday, January 2, 2017
WILL EUROPE'S DISINTEGRATION ACCELERATE IN 2017?
During the Summer of 1971 I spent three months in Western Europe interviewing politicians and labor leaders as part of a research project designed to evaluate the level of opposition to the concept and implementation of the European integration process, which, at the time, was still in its infancy. Some were entirely opposed to the idea of giving up national independence and identity, others were concerned that the process was not taking place fast enough. On balance, the objective of creating a European Union was accepted as inevitably necessary to prevent a recurrence of the wars that wrecked the European continent throughout history.
That was 45 years ago. The initial alliance was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1958, and included Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, and would not be expanded until shortly after I spent my time there. The U.K., Ireland and Denmark joined January 1, 1973, and during subsequent decades the European Union expanded to include 28 member states. The optimistically anticipated inevitability of progress towards an ever-intensifying union did not materialize as smoothly as expected, however. The Schengen Agreements, which eliminated internal border checks and allowed free movement throughout the E.U., signed in 1985 and effective 1995, still suggested significant unanimity, even though the U.K., Ireland, and a few Eastern European members did not sign on. The 1999 roll-out of the Euro, intended to become the official currency of the Union, only attracted 19 members. But the big challenge came in 2004 when the European Parliament attempted to pass a treaty that would have established a constitution for Europe. This constitution was designed to replace existing treaties with a single document, and, among other things, allow for qualified majority voting to replace henceforth mandated unanimity requirements. But French and Dutch voters, in a referendum, voted against adoption, and killed the proposal.
One could argue over why the progression towards the establishment of a unified European state slowed, came to a halt, and regressed. Expansion may have been too great and too fast. New members were likely seduced by anticipated benefits of economic integration, but less inclined to relinquish much of their political independence. The rule that all states had to agree before new policies could be adopted stymied progress. More recently, however, several other significant issues accelerated the disintegration of what, up to then, had grown into one of the most important economic and political powers in the world. The 2008 recession identified a debt crisis in a number of, mostly Southern European, countries, placing significant stress on the Euro-Zone, and illuminating systemic problems within the organization. The overwhelming flood of migrants coming in from the Middle-East and Northern Africa put the continued desirability of the Schengen Agreements to the test, while strengthening nationalist and populist political movements in many member countries. The politicization of these influences created a crisis within the organization, which, in 2017, may well accelerate its disintegration.
In June of 2016 the U.K. voted to leave the Union. In January the British Supreme Court will deliver their verdict on whether Prime Minister Theresa May can use the "royal prerogative" and begin Brexit negotiations with the E.U. without approval of Parliament. If she is not allowed to, members could actually vote against the onset of negotiations and block exit from the Union. In March, in a general election, Dutch voters are expected to give Geert Wilders' anti-E.U., anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Party For Freedom a majority in its House of Representatives. If he succeeds, the Dutch may also be asked to vote to leave the E.U.. France's presidential election is scheduled for April 23 (primary) and May 7 (general). Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, has a real chance of taking over the country's presidency. If she does, she has promised to hold a referendum on a French exit (Frexit). Germany holds its general election sometime between late Summer and early Fall. The nationalist AfD (Alternative for Germany), anti-E.U., anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party will likely give Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats a run for their money. Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's recent resignation has left the door wide open for Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement in an election that could take place later this year. Greece may be headed towards an election as well, since there are signs that Prime Minister Alexis Tsirpas seems to be positioning himself to defy his government's debt restructuring agreement with the European Central Bank.
And so it goes.
Whether the European Union will survive the populist onslaught remains to be seen. Thus far it survived many of the financial skirmishes resulting from the recession in 2008, even though significant debt related systemic issues remain. The more immediate, political, challenges confronting the organization are concentrated in many of its member states, and can't be resolved within its supranational structure. It is telling that roughly one third of the 751 members of the European Parliament are considered "eurosceptic." High unemployment, coupled with a growing refugee crisis affecting most member states, led to the election of these, essentially anti-E.U., MEPs. The average unemployment rate within the E.U. still approaches 10%, with Greece exceeding 23% and Spain hovering around 19%. These statistics won't diminish voter displeasure. The flood of non-European migrants, which produced a cultural identity crisis in many member states, is giving the political parties these eurosceptic MEPs represent the ammunition they need to advance their agenda. Those need to be dealt with in-country, and those are the ones that can eventually further the disintegration of the European idea. Poland and Hungary, countries which joined the E.U. as recently as 2002 and 2004, are already run by eurosceptic governments. Those are the movements to watch.
The next election for the European Parliament won't take place until 2019. A lot can happen between now and then. For those who don't think this issue is important to us, that Europe is far away, and what happens there won't really affect us, just consider that between the U.S. and the E.U. we transact about $1 trillion in business every year, that together we represent 60% of global GDP, that, strategically, we built the strongest military defense alliance in the world, and, as a bloc, we play a leading role in international relations. Disintegration will only benefit our adversaries. It will severely, negatively, affect our national interest.
That was 45 years ago. The initial alliance was created by the Treaty of Rome in 1958, and included Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, and would not be expanded until shortly after I spent my time there. The U.K., Ireland and Denmark joined January 1, 1973, and during subsequent decades the European Union expanded to include 28 member states. The optimistically anticipated inevitability of progress towards an ever-intensifying union did not materialize as smoothly as expected, however. The Schengen Agreements, which eliminated internal border checks and allowed free movement throughout the E.U., signed in 1985 and effective 1995, still suggested significant unanimity, even though the U.K., Ireland, and a few Eastern European members did not sign on. The 1999 roll-out of the Euro, intended to become the official currency of the Union, only attracted 19 members. But the big challenge came in 2004 when the European Parliament attempted to pass a treaty that would have established a constitution for Europe. This constitution was designed to replace existing treaties with a single document, and, among other things, allow for qualified majority voting to replace henceforth mandated unanimity requirements. But French and Dutch voters, in a referendum, voted against adoption, and killed the proposal.
One could argue over why the progression towards the establishment of a unified European state slowed, came to a halt, and regressed. Expansion may have been too great and too fast. New members were likely seduced by anticipated benefits of economic integration, but less inclined to relinquish much of their political independence. The rule that all states had to agree before new policies could be adopted stymied progress. More recently, however, several other significant issues accelerated the disintegration of what, up to then, had grown into one of the most important economic and political powers in the world. The 2008 recession identified a debt crisis in a number of, mostly Southern European, countries, placing significant stress on the Euro-Zone, and illuminating systemic problems within the organization. The overwhelming flood of migrants coming in from the Middle-East and Northern Africa put the continued desirability of the Schengen Agreements to the test, while strengthening nationalist and populist political movements in many member countries. The politicization of these influences created a crisis within the organization, which, in 2017, may well accelerate its disintegration.
In June of 2016 the U.K. voted to leave the Union. In January the British Supreme Court will deliver their verdict on whether Prime Minister Theresa May can use the "royal prerogative" and begin Brexit negotiations with the E.U. without approval of Parliament. If she is not allowed to, members could actually vote against the onset of negotiations and block exit from the Union. In March, in a general election, Dutch voters are expected to give Geert Wilders' anti-E.U., anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim Party For Freedom a majority in its House of Representatives. If he succeeds, the Dutch may also be asked to vote to leave the E.U.. France's presidential election is scheduled for April 23 (primary) and May 7 (general). Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front, has a real chance of taking over the country's presidency. If she does, she has promised to hold a referendum on a French exit (Frexit). Germany holds its general election sometime between late Summer and early Fall. The nationalist AfD (Alternative for Germany), anti-E.U., anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim party will likely give Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats a run for their money. Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's recent resignation has left the door wide open for Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement in an election that could take place later this year. Greece may be headed towards an election as well, since there are signs that Prime Minister Alexis Tsirpas seems to be positioning himself to defy his government's debt restructuring agreement with the European Central Bank.
And so it goes.
Whether the European Union will survive the populist onslaught remains to be seen. Thus far it survived many of the financial skirmishes resulting from the recession in 2008, even though significant debt related systemic issues remain. The more immediate, political, challenges confronting the organization are concentrated in many of its member states, and can't be resolved within its supranational structure. It is telling that roughly one third of the 751 members of the European Parliament are considered "eurosceptic." High unemployment, coupled with a growing refugee crisis affecting most member states, led to the election of these, essentially anti-E.U., MEPs. The average unemployment rate within the E.U. still approaches 10%, with Greece exceeding 23% and Spain hovering around 19%. These statistics won't diminish voter displeasure. The flood of non-European migrants, which produced a cultural identity crisis in many member states, is giving the political parties these eurosceptic MEPs represent the ammunition they need to advance their agenda. Those need to be dealt with in-country, and those are the ones that can eventually further the disintegration of the European idea. Poland and Hungary, countries which joined the E.U. as recently as 2002 and 2004, are already run by eurosceptic governments. Those are the movements to watch.
The next election for the European Parliament won't take place until 2019. A lot can happen between now and then. For those who don't think this issue is important to us, that Europe is far away, and what happens there won't really affect us, just consider that between the U.S. and the E.U. we transact about $1 trillion in business every year, that together we represent 60% of global GDP, that, strategically, we built the strongest military defense alliance in the world, and, as a bloc, we play a leading role in international relations. Disintegration will only benefit our adversaries. It will severely, negatively, affect our national interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)