Beware of the Security Industrial Complex....

In January 1961, President Eisenhower went on national television to give his last public address from the Oval Office. The best known element of that speech was the President's admonition that America be weary of the growth of the "military-industrial complex." What Eisenhower meant by this has been the subject of much debate (and the source of many conspiracy theories), but he was openly worrying about the peacetime growth of the American military and the troubling intersection of Pentagon bureaucracy, private sector military contractors, and their political paymasters in Congress; a classic "iron triangle."

I have been giving some thought to whether a similar kind of complex has perhaps descended on post-9/11 North America; the Security Industrial Complex?

New West Partnership and Neoclassical Integration

Many Canadian newspapers ran a story this morning wherein the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan called for an overhaul of the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade. For many people, the AIT is likely to illicit snoring, but it is actually part of a fascinating case study in the neoclassical stages of integration.

Most Canadians have probably never heard of the AIT, but was essentially an effort to eliminate inter-provincial barriers to trade within Canada; a NAFTA for Canada's provinces. The analogy between the two agreements is not far fetched. Indeed, a quick comparison of the texts of the two agreements reveals similarities many would find shocking, complete with institutional architecture like dispute settlement (see for yourself AIT vs. NAFTA).

When we think about trade liberalization, we more commonly think about the elimination of barriers to trade between countries and protracted, high-level, and controversial negotiations to bring all of it about. The World Trade Organization's various "Rounds" of negotiations, the infamous NAFTA negotiations from the early 1990s, or the ongoing Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations often come to mind.

Leading from behind.....

President Obama has been mocked for his assertion that America has been "leading from behind."

Back in early June, President Obama did a bit of plain old leading by proposing new rules on carbon emissions from power plants (link). The new rules are the first significant exercise of authority exercised by the EPA under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. In earlier posts to this blog, I detailed how this interpretation of the Clean Air Act came about (link to February 2 Post) as well as my belief that President Obama would indeed invoke "executive authority" to tackle climate change during his remaining two years in office (link to April 23 Post).

Reaction to the proposed rule was generally positive, particularly among those who have been pushing for decisive U.S. action on climate change. It was an important step forward, but also one that will not dramatically alter America's contribution to global emissions. In fact, if fully implemented, the rules' main impact may be to force the closure of some of America's oldest, dirtiest, and least efficient coal-fired power plants (see link).

Here's where it gets rich.... The day after Obama's announcement, Alberta's Minister of Environment, Robin Campbell, suggested that Canada and the United States work together on climate change initiatives; something I have argued would grease the political skids for Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline (link). Campbell seemed to be arguing that Alberta was doing some leading. Hmmm....

Immigration and Governance....

Immigration is one of those lightening rod issues about which hardly anyone is without an opinion. That, of course, is a key element in understanding why the issue is so intractable. Major foreign policy crises such as the Ukraine and the apparent unravelling of Iraq have overshadowed developments in long-simmering debates about immigration in the United States. In the last several months, a bizarre crisis has been unfolding along U.S.-Mexico border as thousands of children, most from Central America, have crossed into the U.S. unaccompanied by their parents (See Link). Since October 2013, some 47,000 children have crossed the border and immediately surrendered themselves to U.S. immigration officials who have then shipped them off to make-shift detention centers to await processing. What's going on? It's simply people responding to incentives.....

Iraq is Back.....

Those who have followed (or at least tried) Iraq's progress since the withdraw of all U.S. military personnel in 2011 know that Iraq has been on a long descent into chaos. The sources of the descent are multiple, but are largely anchored in unwillingness of Iraq's Shiite dominated government to compromise with the Sunni and Kurdish minorities in the country. Instead, the levers of power have been used to settle old scores, alienate enemies, and consolidate power. I wholeheartedly agree with those who argue that the lion's share of the responsibility for all of this rests with Iraq's government (see article).

The rapid advance of ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) into some of Iraq's most important cities is yet another example of the perils of "presidential doctrines" I wrote about in my previous post. Foreign policy is tough and seldom presents officials with simple choices. To the degree Obama Doctrine can coherently be described as the use of "necessary force," the advance of ISIS, and the related conflict next door in Syria, continue present the administration with an almost unfathomable set of difficult problems in deciding if, where, how, and when force should be deployed. If foreign policy were an old silent Hollywood western, we'd start lobbing missiles at the guys with the black hats. But it's not a Hollywood film.

Even if there are no good solutions for American policy makers, there are plenty of boo-birds tossing around diagnoses of what has gone so rapidly off the rails, many of them pointing to President Obama. House Speaker John Boehner yesterday said the president had been "taking a nap" as Iraq has been spinning out of control. Senator McCain, a regular critic of Obama's foreign policy, called for the resignation of the President's entire national security team (see link). For those interested, the Rand Corporation produced a lengthy diagnosis of America's failures in Iraq that makes for sober reading (PDF via this link).

However, when looking for source material for what is transpiring today, it's hard to ignore some of the "what ifs" that flow from Coalition Provisional Authority Orders No. 1 and No. 2 in the spring of of 2003; the de-Ba'athification degree issued by CPA Administrator, Paul Bremer.

Presidential Doctrines are Tough.....

President Obama was at West Point Wednesday to deliver a commencement speech to the new crop of officers, and reset the stage for American foreign policy (transcript linked here) as the United States winds things down in Afghanistan, possibly later this year. In many quarters, both at home and abroad, his speech has gone over like a lead balloon. The President's supporters think he is threading the needle perfectly between intervention and restraint in global affairs (see story). Others think Obama's approach is just the latest bit of evidence that the President is willfully hastening America's slide into irrevocable decline (see story). Some of the punditry and arm-chair quarterbacking is predictable, perhaps including this blog post.

Only the most delusional of partisans would describe President Obama's foreign policy as successful. However, Obama is not the first American president to have their foreign policy efforts blow up in their face. At bottom, I think President Obama would rather the world take a time out so he could focus entirely on issues he cares much more deeply about, such as healthcare, climate change, and the economy. Unfortunately, the world is a messy little place in which foreign policy aims regularly seem to wash up on the complicated rocks of reality.

Those who study American foreign policy spend a lot of time teasing out "presidential doctrines" on foreign affairs. These so-called "doctrines" have become shorthand for both the world view and policy emphases of every U.S. president since Monroe. Experts focused on Wednesday's speech saw in it modifications to Obama Doctrine. Yet, what and who doctrines are for is itself a curious thing. In the rest of this post, I offer a few thoughts about why....

How not to build a pipeline... and how social science could have helped

The Keystone XL saga continues to deliver head-scratchers. While everyone awaits the decision of the Nebraska Supreme Court (link to case here) expected late this year, a number of items have crossed my desk that reinforce points made in earlier blog posts. A couple of weeks ago, the business pages of the Financial Post reported that TransCanada Pipeline sent letters to some Nebraska land-owners suggesting they are running out of time to get a solid compensation offer in exchange for pipeline right of way (link here). It's a curious development since just a few months ago, TransCanada sent out similar notices with dramatic increases in offers of compensation (link here). In one family's case, a 2012 offer of $8,900 for right of way across their property rose to nearly $62,000 in January 2014. Now, some of those same landowners are being told that unless they sign on the dotted line now, they might be left holding the bag. Not a great way to win friends.

Does "North America" Exist?

The Canadian International Council has produced a fantastic graphic that vividly depicts how deeply (or not) North America is integrated economically (See link). In fact, what this chart really depicts is a North American economic space dominated by two bilateral trading relationships; U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico. It is a classic hub-and-spoke situation. Unfortunately, this chart is also suggestive of some of what plagues trilateral relations. In recent years, the comparatively tenuous economic ties between Canada and Mexico have been reflected in the relative frostiness between the two over a host of issues (border security, immigration, visa requirements, regulatory cooperation, etc), with both Mexico City and Ottawa (but mostly Ottawa) electing to pursue issues with Washington bilaterally.

As I wrote back on January 21 (post linked here), the rebilateralization of North America is a troubling development. That economic ties between Canada and Mexico are not strong enough to have forestalled rebilateralization may ultimately prove an unfortunate development for both countries. 

POTUS and the Environment....

I wanted to make a quick post today because of an interesting article in Rolling Stone (Link to story here) about President Obama's efforts to address climate change. In addition to the interesting details on how he plans to address climate change through his executive authority via the EPA, the politics of last week's Keystone XL pipeline delay (my previous post) are also here.

All of it is part of a broader strategy on climate change by the administration, part of which was outlined in February's State of the Union Address. I wrote about that in my post from February 2 (linked here). It remains relevant and mirrors much of what Jeff Goodell says in his Rolling Stone piece, including how Obama's domestic strategy fits into global climate change talks scheduled for 2015. My scribbles didn't make it to Rolling Stone, but it's always nice to read something that mirrors some of your own analysis.

The Keystone Punt and Political Culture....

I was running around town today when my phone started buzzing with alerts from the various news sites I subscribe to. Several of them brought me the news that President Obama had once again delayed a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, this time indefinitely. I couldn't help but laugh. There are plenty of people that think this project is a "no brainer." Yet, as I have been arguing for some time now (see February 2 post, for example), there is little incentive for Obama to approve this project. It now appears that no decision will be made until at least the first quarter of 2015, at the earliest. By then, the approval picture will be even murkier since the President will officially be entering lame-duck territory, and will have to work harder to remain relevant as the jockeying for the 2016 nomination in both parties sucks up all of the political oxygen.

Campaign Finance Floodgates?

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a set of rules limiting the aggregate amount individual donors could contribute to candidates or political action committees. The 5-4 ruling (McCutcheon et al. vs. Federal Election Commission) has been viewed by many as opening the floodgates even further to the corrupting influence of money in the American political process (see story). While the ruling maintains limits on how much can be contributed to any single candidate or action committee, there are now effectively no limits on how many candidates or committees across the nation a wealthy donor could conceivably support.

This latest ruling comes in the wake of the major SCOTUS decision (Citizens United vs. FEC) back in January 2010 that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and that the government cannot limit the capacity of firms or unions to spend money to support or oppose candidates in elections. Such organizations were still limited in their ability to contribute to specific candidates, but Citizens United took the gloves off where spending on independent advocacy: advertising.