venerdì 28 ottobre 2016

What is President Obama’s Legacy?

Excellent article:
Some research to do:
What was the ‘legacy’ that Obama inherited from previous administrations? What were the expectations when he was elected at home and abroad? What were his policy objectives? Consider:

1)      Obama as the first African American elected President
2)      the divisions in US society
3)      the US economy, short term and long-term, and global cooperation in this area
4)      reforming the financial and banking sector
5)      the war on terror and the US approach to the Arab world / Israel and the Palestinians
6)      civil liberties, Guantánamo Bay and human rights
7) health care reform
8)     US oreign policy and the Pacific
9)      US foreign policy and Russia
10)  US foreign policy and China
11)  US foreign policy the EU and NATO
12)  climate change

More than seven years later what are the realities regarding these questions? Were these objectives achieved? If not, why not? What are the main criticisms coming from those on the right? And on the left?
What have been the limiting factors and constraints, legal and practical, on Obama?
What are the major achievements and failures of the administration and the man, given all of the above? The Iran nuclear deal / Cuba / climate change etc…

Some ideas

A legacy is something that somebody leaves you in their will (testamento). A special legacy is often something someone leaves you that you did not expect to inherit. So metaphorically for a US President it means, in the short term, the general situation one President leaves to the next, and in the historic sense, a President’s outstanding achievements or failures. So for FDR it usually means the New Deal, victory in World War II and the planning of the UN.

A President’s legacy will also depend on one’s political point of view, on the left or right (particularly now when the spirit and tradition of of bipartisan politics seems dead in the US and opinions are so clearly divided on so many issues) and on whether one is judging as a US citizen or from abroad (and then from which part of the world e.g. Italy or Libya).

So what did newly-elected President Obama inherit from the Bush administration? There was the financial crisis and the effects of the crisis as it spread to the real economy and went global, leading to an economic slowdown and the threat of a world recession. Abroad there was the continuing war against terror and attempts to reduce and eventually end the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan in the hope of leaving law and order to the local government and its security forces. There was also the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia (Georgia 2008) and the beginning of the Arab Spring.

How is Obama’s legacy seen in the US? The President had an approval rating of about 51% in March 2016 and 53% in September 2016. The main factor in opinion polls remains the economy. Unemployment was down to 5% in March 2016 (4.9% in August) but many jobs are poorly paid and short-term, and manufacturing is now only 12% to 13% of GDP compared with 19% in1995. Many of those in manufacturing who lost or risk losing their jobs and who may have previously voted for Obama, may now feel abandoned and be planning to support Donald Trump. Many Americans blame Obama for doing too little to contain immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America (but recently also from China and India, so that immigration from Asia now equals that from Latin America) and see this as a force driving wages lower, or at least keeping them from rising, and increasing competition for jobs. Some also consider it a cultural threat. New immigrants were 1.7 million in 2015 and immigrants represented 13.3% of the US population. These are both records in recent history.

Economists are divided about whether the recession is really over and about how strong and competitive the US economy is. Obama responded to the economic crisis with a neo-Keynesian intervention, a stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and a new framework to regulate the financial sector, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Critics on the left say these were not enough, and on the right that the latter is too restrictive. The US Public Debt rose from 87% of GDP in 2009 to about 100% in 2012 but now seems fairly stable. It was 104.17% in March 2016 (105.05%September 2016). In 2015 the annual deficit was 2.5% and is forecast to be 3.3% in 2016. GDP growth was 2% in the third quarter of 2015 and 1.4% in the last quarter and same in the second quarter of 2016. The trade deficit remains high, at 2.7% in March 2016 (3% in August), but this is much less than the 4.7% level recorded in 2008. Current interest rates in the US are in the 0.25% to 0.5% range and it is not clear if the Fed will be able to raise them much this year or next year, though it would like to. A recovery in interest rates, stuck at 0.25% from 2008 to December 2015, would be taken as a measure of recovery and normality for the economy in general, hence the concerns about the strength and durability of the current upturn. Assistance programs for subprime mortgage homeowners who lost their jobs and couldn’t pay their mortgages were judged largely ineffective.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (often referred to as Obamacare) massively reduced the number of Americans without health care insurance. In March 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the average number of uninsured during the period from January to September 2014 was 11.4 million fewer than the average in 2010. In April 2016, Gallup reported that the percentage of adults who were uninsured dropped from 18% in the third quarter of 2013 to 11% in the first quarter of 2016. However, critics complain that this is not the European-style universal public health care system many on the left hoped for. Nevertheless, for the President it is one of his proudest achievements, so it represents a significant part of what he regards as his legacy.
Barack Obama was elected with great hopes and expectations as the first US African-American President and the African-American community continues to say that he has opened doors for them. The administration made efforts to improve educational for minorities and the percentage of both African American and Hispanic teenagers completing high school successfully has risen by 4% during his Presidency. Recognition of the need for greater racial equality has gained more support among the public according to a Pew Report of Jan. 2016, but discrimination against African Americans within society and allegedly by some sections of the police remains a challenge. Above all, the difference in average incomes between white Americans and African Americans is higher now than it has been since 1989. So on improving the situation of African Americans President Obama’s record is at best patchy.
The administration was initially a supporter of gay rights but not on all issues, but during his two terms the President gradually moved to stronger and more open support for Supreme Court rulings that made same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples legal nationwide in June 2015. Since September 2011, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have been able to serve openly in the US military. The President announced his own change of position on same-sex marriage in an interview in May 2012.

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people”. This was obviously more of a hope for the future than a real response to the short period he had been in office, but generally Obama’s foreign policy can, indeed, be credited with trying to open and build a dialogue with traditional US enemies and to strengthen global cooperation to deal with global challenges. This was a shift from the post-9/11 confrontational style of the Bush administration and the ‘rogue states’ view of the world. Obama sought and generally achieved an international response to the global economic crisis based on a loosely coordinated strategy. He maintained the dialogue with China but the relationship with the Russian Federation proved more problematic with confrontation and sanctions over Ukraine and disagreement over Syria. One of the main initiatives taken by the Obama administration has been the ‘pivot’ (or rebalancing ) towards the Asia- Pacific area, a shift of focus and resources away from Europe, considered secure, and any further commitments in the Middle East (from which the US wanted to withdraw) to the Far East in support of China’s neighbors now beginning to feel threatened by China’s expansionism in the South China Sea and North Korea’s increasingly erratic and aggressive rhetoric and behavior. The US pushed for its European NATO allies to take more responsibility in relations with Russia and their neighbors in the Arab world. In the Libyan operation the Europeans led with US logistical support (leading from behind). This led to the fall of the Gaddafi regime but no effective strategy for a follow-up operation to stabilize the country. Obama himself recently recognized this as one of his administrations major errors. The desire for change and some alternative to military intervention in the Muslim world was clearly stated early on, in Obama’s Cairo University speech in 2009, calling for a new relationship with the Arab world. However, the lack of any real progress on negotiations between Israel and Palestinians was indicative of the administrations inability to put its intentions into action. The killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 should have symbolized the end of the old confrontation with the Muslim world, and before this the cautious US support for the growing demonstrations and protests of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt and across the Arab world may have simply represented an optimistic desire to believe that after the democratic changes in Latin America and Eastern Europe it was finally the turn of the Arab world. As the Arab Spring turned to Winter the US was forced to take a more realistic approach, accepting the overthrow of the democratically elected but Islamist government in Cairo by the Egyptian army in 2013 and drawing a red line on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war (but then backing down from action when the line was crossed). In responding to this civil war the US seemed both hesitant and unclear about what strategy it wanted to follow. The US first backed the rebels against the Syrian government with aid and money but refused to supply heavy arms fearing this might lead to a direct commitment of its forces. This strategy proved ineffective. Later, with the rise of Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, it began bombing missions against IS. The involvement of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Turkey and Russia in support of different groups showed just how far the world has moved away from a unipolar to a multipolar order. Critics of Obama, at home and abroad, have stressed the uncertainty, reluctance and passiveness of the administration in responding to events in the Arab world.
Meanwhile there has been much criticism from human rights NGOs about the administration’s increasingly extensive use of drone warfare to target IS and Taliban fighters and terrorists. These attacks involve no trial and due process and often lead to the death of innocent civilians. The radical left has denounced this as state-sponsored terrorism. Similarly the extensive spying system used by the US and its allies in fighting terrorism has been seen as a breach of privacy and basic civil rights by civil rights groups in the US and other countries. The administration has been forced to abandon some forms of surveillance as a result of losing cases in the courts to civil rights groups. Nevertheless, the NSA continues to exercise powers arguably not under real democratic control and to insist that this is necessary to ensure security and counter and prevent terrorism. The Manning case (2010) and Snowden case (2013) were presented by the administration as threats to security requiring harsh punishment, and by critics as a necessary exposure of human rights abuse and the extent of the government’s use of both legal and illegal surveillance programs both at home and abroad. All of this has seriously damaged Obama’s liberal credentials. Obama was also elected with the pledge to close down the US detention centre for suspect terrorists in Guantánamo Bay. However, for legal and practical reasons this has so far proved impossible and Obama has preferred to slowly reduce the number of detainees.

Any assessment of the Obama administration’s record needs to take into account the legal restraints that the Constitution imposes on the office of the Presidency and the practical constraints imposed by a hostile Republican Congress and limited resources. The extensive use made by Obama of Executive Orders in his second term (for example, the recent 2016 Executive Order to reduce gun violence) shows both the practical limits on his choices given the Republican hold on Congress and his determination to get things done.

Two key achievements of his legacy may be the nuclear deal with Iran and the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba. These are both products of Obama’s willingness to engage with old enemies, maintain a dialogue and commit to negotiating a deal. Whether these deals lead to lasting settlements will depend on the other party's reliability and on who wins the White House and Congressional elections in November. So they will certainly be part of his immediate legacy.

Another of Obama’s achievements has been moving the US forward on climate change and getting to the first-ever universal, legally binding global agreement at the COP21 in Paris in Dec. 2015, a commitment that also includes China to keep the rise in global average temperatures to well below 2% compared with pre-industrial levels. The deal does not include sanctions and would need to be ratified by the US Senate at some point to become law. So US participation will again probably ultimately depend on who wins the White House and Congressional elections.

In terms of personality Obama has been praised for his ability to dialogue and engage with the public and the calm diplomatic skills he demonstrates when speaking in public. However, he has also been criticized for his failure to charm, persuade (flatter, threaten, blackmail!) in order to influence members of Congress (and build consensus) that were a feature of the Presidential skills of Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan. Thus, some see him as engaging but slightly diffident, though not as distant and academic as Woodrow Wilson.

Many commentator, in summing up, have stressed the gaps in Obama’s performance between good intentions and reality. This may simply be the nature of politics given the constraints that he has to live with and operate under, a hostile Congress and a multipolar world order in which the US remains the key player but no longer the only major player. Moreover, if a week in politics is a long time and given that Barack Obama has another three months as President, it may be a little early to be summing things up and talking about his legacy. We may need to wait until we are a couple of years into his successor's Presidency to understand what impact he has made.





giovedì 27 ottobre 2016

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Background
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
A March 2013 economic assessment by the European Centre for Economic Policy Research estimates that such a comprehensive agreement would result in annual GDP growth of 68-119 billion euros by 2027 and annual GDP growth of 50-95 billion euros in the United States in the same time frame. The 2013 report also estimates that a limited agreement focused only on tariffs would yield annual EU GDP growth of 24 billion euros by 2027 and annual growth of 9 billion euros in the United States.
and
Position of European Trade Union Confederation:
Greenpeace:
Friends of the Earth
Other opponents:
Some critics claim that the deal will lower standards of consumer protection, the provision of public services, labour protection, intellectual property and environmental protection in the EU and will launch an assault on European sovereignty. In fact, companies would gain a huge influence over governments through the proposed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism that would allow an investor to sue a government for ‘unfair’ policies against its commercial interests.
Given the opposition, negotiations may end in a more limited agreement focused only on tariffs, however, with conventional trade barriers between the US and the EU already low, the benefits of such a limited deal would smaller.
 The Trans-Pacific Partnership
Presenting the case:
and first reactions now it is published:
Benefits
Drawbacks
Extract:
Investor–state arbitration
According to The Nation's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP's rules, even limiting how governments could spend their tax dollars. As of 2012, US negotiators were pursuing an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, also known as corporate tribunals, which can be used to attack domestic public interest laws. This mechanism is a common provision in international trade and investment agreements, that grants an investor the right to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government in their own right under international law. For example, if an investor invests in country "A", a member of a trade treaty, and country A breaches that treaty, then the investor may sue country A's government for the breach.
Critics of the investment protection regime argue that
traditional investment treaty standards are incompatible with environmental law, human rights protection, and public welfare regulation, meaning that TPP will be used to force states to lower standards e.g., environmental and workers protection, or be sued for damages. The Australian government's position against investor state dispute settlement has been argued to support the rule of law and national energy security.
latest, May 2015 to January 2016:
TTIP

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal

latest August 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/30/france-demands-end-to-ttip-trade-talks-matthias-fekl

latest October 2016
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/09/economist-explains-9
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/06/transatlantic-trade-partnership-ttip-canada-eu
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)

martedì 18 ottobre 2016

What is President Obama’s Legacy?

Excellent article:
Some research to do:
What was the ‘legacy’ that Obama inherited from previous administrations? What were the expectations when he was elected at home and abroad? What were his policy objectives? Consider:

1) Obama as the first African American elected President
2) the divisions in US society
3) the US economy, short term and long-term, and global cooperation in this area
4) reforming the financial and banking sector
5) the war on terror and the US approach to the Arab world / Israel and the Palestinians
6) civil liberties, Guantánamo Bay and human rights
7) health care reform
8) US oreign policy and the Pacific
9) US foreign policy and Russia
10) US foreign policy and China
11) US foreign policy the EU and NATO
12) climate change

More than seven years later what are the realities regarding these questions? Were these objectives achieved? If not, why not? What are the main criticisms coming from those on the right? And on the left?
What have been the limiting factors and constraints, legal and practical, on Obama?
What are the major achievements and failures of the administration and the man, given all of the above? The Iran nuclear deal / Cuba / climate change etc…