Our So-Called Foreign Policy: An Empty Obama UN Farewell

Tags

assimilation, education, geopolitics, global integration, globalization, international law, international norms, Islam, labor standards, Middle East, Muslims, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, radical Islam, reeducation, refugees, skills, sovereignty, TPP, Trade, trade enforcement, training, Trans-Pacific Partnership, UN, United Nations

National leaders’ speeches to each year’ UN General Assembly – even those by American presidents – are rarely more than meaningless boilerplate or cynical bloviating. But President Obama’s address to the organization yesterday – as with some of its predecessors – is worth examining in detail both because it was his last, and because Mr. Obama clearly views such occasions as opportunities to push U.S. and international public opinion in fundamentally new directions where they urgently need to head.

In yesterday’s case, the president saw his mission as justifying his belief that Americans in particular need to reject temptations to turn inward from the world’s troubles, and more completely embrace forces that inexorably are tightening international integration economically and even in term of national security.

To be fair to Mr. Obama, he sought to offer “broad strokes those areas where I believe we must do better together” rather than “a detailed policy blueprint.” But even given this caveat, what’s most striking is how many of the big, tough questions he (eloquently) dodges.

Here’s the president’s main premise and conclusion:

“…I believe that at this moment we all face a choice. We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion.

“I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward, and not backward. I believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles of open markets and accountable governance, of democracy and human rights and international law that we have forged remain the firmest foundation for human progress in this century.”

This passage makes clear that Mr. Obama doesn’t buy my thesis that the United States is geopolitically secure and economically self-sufficient enough in reality and potential to thrive however chaotic the rest of the world. Nor does he believe the converse – that the security and prosperity the nation has enjoyed throughout its history has first and foremost stemmed from its own location, and from its ability to capitalize on its inherent advantages and strengths, not from cooperating or integrating with the rest of the world.

The president’s contention that “the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies” rings true for most countries – even assuming that he doesn’t really think that this stark choice is the only alternative to complete openness to global developments and commerce and populations and authority, however promising or threatening. But he seems oblivious to America’s “exceptionalism” geopolitically and economically.

Even if I’m wrong, however, and even accepting Mr. Obama’s “broad strokes” objectives, this lengthy presidential address gives national leaders and their citizens almost no useful insights on how countries can achieve his goals. Here are just two examples:

The president recognizes the need to make the global economy “work better for all people and not just for those at the top.” But given the trade deals he himself has sought, how can worker rights be strengthened “so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage”? The president insisted again that his Pacific Rim trade deal points the way. But as I’ve noted, the immense scale of factory complexes even in smallish third world countries like Vietnam makes the necessary outside monitoring and enforcement impossible.

Similarly, no one can argue with Mr. Obama’s recommendation to invest “in our people — their skills, their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business.” But as I documented more than a decade ago in my The Race to the Bottom, governments the world over, including in the very low-wage developing world, recognize the importance of improving their populations’ skill and education levels. In addition, multinational corporations can make workers productive even in these very low-income countries – and continue paying them peanuts compared with wages in more developed countries. Why should anyone expect his recommendation to give workers in America a leg up?

It’s easy to sympathize with the president’s call “to open our hearts and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a home.” Who in principle is opposed to aiding “men and women and children who, through no fault of their own, have had to flee everything that they know, everything that they love,…”?

But as Mr. Obama indirectly admitted, many of these refugees come from a part of the world where “religion leads us to persecute those of another faith…[to] jail or beat people who are gay…[and to] prevent girls from going to school….” He also described the Middle East as a place where too often the “public space” is narrowed “to the mosque.”

It was encouraging to see him recognize the legitimacy – though perhaps not the necessity – of insisting “that refugees who come to our countries have to do more to adapt to the customs and conventions of the communities that are now providing them a home.” But is he blithely assuming success? And it was less encouraging to see him ignore the excruciatingly difficult challenge of adequately vetting migrants from war-torn and chaotic countries.

Finally, on the political side of integration, the president seems to lack the courage of his convictions. For despite his high regard for international law, and support for America “giving up some freedom of action” and “binding ourselves to international rules,” he also specified that these were long-term objectives – presumably with little relevance in the here and now. Indeed, Mr. Obama also argued that, even way down the road, the United States wouldn’t be “giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests….”

So it sounds like he’d relegate even future international law-obeying to situations that really don’t matter. Which is fine. But how that gets us to a more secure world is anyone’s guess.

It’s true that Mr. Obama will be leaving office soon, and that his thoughts no longer matter critically. But at the same time, American leaders have been speaking in these lofty globalist terms for decades. If the president is indeed right about global integration and the future, what a shame that he didn’t make more progress in bringing these ideas down to earth.

Im-Politic: Should Hillary Clinton Give Bill the (Campaigning) Heave-Ho?

Tags

2016 elections, Bill Clinton, border security, bridge to the 21st century, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism, Jobs, reeducation, retraining, San Bernardino, Saudi Arabia, Tashfeen Malik, terrorism, Trade, white working class

If I were Hillary Clinton, I’d be having big second thoughts about how extensively I’d want to use husband Bill Clinton as a surrogate in her presidential campaign. For the former president keeps – I assume unwittingly – laying all sorts of traps for the still likely Democratic nominee on the super-sensitive and explosive issues of the economy and immigration-related threats of terrorism. This report of a an appearance Bill Clinton made yesterday in New Jersey shows why his stumping is so problematic for Ms. Clinton.

Take the economy. Although at the 2012 Democratic convention, Bill Clinton made a politically brilliant case for the Obama administration’s economic record, he sure sounded more downbeat at Union College: “All over the world there is stagnant economic growth, stagnant incomes, rising inequality and deep arguments over what to do about our increasing diversity,” he contended. Since the United States remains part of that world, this indictment sounds an awful lot like it includes President Obama’s second term – which former Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in no position to condemn.

Bill Clinton also claimed to recognize a major component of America’s economic failings – the worsening plight of the white, working class that has helped foster the rise of presumptive Republican candidate Donald Trump. In Mr. Clinton’s words, “We all need to recognize that white, non-college-educated Americans have seen great drops in their income, have seen great increases in their unemployment rate, have seen drops in their life expectancy….”

Trouble is, his credibility on these issues lies in tatters. In part, he’s a fatally flawed messenger on this score because the job- and wage-killing trade deals he spearheaded as president starting with NAFTA deserve such blame for white plight (along with undercutting minorities’ progress). Similarly the former president’s vague call that Trump supporters and the like “be brought along to the future” echoes his utopian presidential promise to help Americans harmed by trade liberalization by building a “bridge to the twenty-first century” constructed of retraining and reeducation programs.

Nor did Bill Clinton help his wife’s cause by insisting (in the reporter’s words) “that fortified borders and immigration bans can’t prevent terrorism.”

According to the former president, “The last serious terrorist incident in the United States occurred in San Bernardino, Calif. Those people were converted over the internet.” But although that seems clear for Syed Rizwan Farook, it’s anything but for his wife, Tashfeen Malik. While still living in her native Pakistan, Malik reportedly “attended the Al-Huda Institute in Multan, part of a chain of women-only religious schools in Pakistan.” Al-Huda says it aims to promote a peaceful message, but it’s “known for its puritanical interpretation of Islam” – an interpretation that’s played a decisive role in fostering terrorism both theologically (by promoting intolerance) and institutionally (through activities sponsored by the Saudi theocracy that champions such reactionary values).

Indeed, Malik also reportedly changed dramatically following a trip to Saudi Arabia several years before immigrating to the United States. And speaking of her entry into America, Republican Members of Congress have charged that Malik’s visa application was never properly vetted by U.S. immigration authorities.

Mr. Bill Clinton’s other comments on immigration and terrorism issues ranged from the ignorant to the inane. Apparently the former president thought he could definitively establish Trump as a kook by noting, “You can build all the walls you want. You can build them all across Canada; they got a bunch of foreigners in Canada.” But even under President Obama – no immigration hard-liner – “The US-Canadian border [has] increasingly [become] a national security hotspot watched over by drones, surveillance towers, and agents of the Department of Homeland Security.”

And kooky is the only apt description for President Clinton’s suggestion that such border security measures are pathetically irrelevant because “You could not keep out the social media.” In other words, because all dangers can’t be prevented, all prevention efforts are pointless.

President Clinton could well find his campaign mojo again before the November elections. No politician who has won the presidency twice should ever be underestimated, much less counted out. But time keeps getting shorter, and unless Mr. Clinton ups his game soon, his new boss might soon have to send him the Trump-ian message, “You’re fired.”

Im-Politic: A Trade Gimmick That’s (Finally!) Backfiring?

Tags

AFL-CIO, Congress, Democrats, fast track, Im-Politic, Jobs, Obama, reeducation, Republicans, retraining, TAA, TPA, TPP, Trade, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Trade Promotion Authority, Trans-Pacific Partnership, wages

As must be clear to anyone following the issue, the final twists and turns of the Congressional fight over President Obama’s fast track trade bill are so inane that they make the sausage-making process often compared to legislating look pretty. At this point, no one can know the final fate of the bill, which would among other provisions prevent Congress from amending any of the president’s new trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But one especially noteworthy feature of this climactic phase is how the chronically cynical use of a program called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is being hoisted on its own petard – and may actually sink the president’s trade agenda.

TAA aims at providing government-sponsored re-education and retraining for workers whose jobs are displaced for trade-related reasons. The first and most important thing to know about it is that it’s a proven failure. As made clear in numerous studies, the intended beneficiaries only rarely find new jobs that pay as well as the ones they’ve lost. Moreover, no one would should be surprised by this. As economist Ricardo Hausmann has once again reminded us, the evidence is clear that the best kind of job training is that provided by the private sector – on the job to start with.

The program is up for renewal, and Republicans generally oppose it because of their deeply held skepticism about government’s competence in any area outside national security and law enforcement. But many often vote for it for the same reason as some Democrats who tend to support trade agreements: They think it provides them with political cover for backing the trade policies that have wiped out these jobs and crushed their industries’ wage structures in the first place.

But despite the program’s proven ineffectiveness, many trade policy critics in Democratic and liberal ranks favor it as well for substantive reasons. Their rationale seems to follow “half a loaf” reasoning: TAA is far from perfect, but it’s better than nothing. And largely as a result, backers of offshoring-friendly trade deals have sometimes been able in effect to buy enough Democratic votes to secure their passage.

It’s clear that the White House and Congress’ Republican leadership were banking on this tactic this time out, too. But then something extraordinary happened. To simplify just a bit, very late in the game, large numbers of Democratic trade critics seem to have decided not to be played any more. Even the AFL-CIO, which has always supported TAA as strongly as it has opposed flawed trade agreements, has now evidently decided that it’s much more important to save large numbers of jobs by defeating trade policies that have destroyed them than to help an at-best-tiny number of workers with TAA. (Its stated rationale, to be sure, concerns allegedly inadequate funding levels and other specific shortcomings.)  And because of possibly too-clever-by-half tactical decisions by House Republican leaders, the scheduled sequence of votes today could enable the trade critics to kill the fast track bill with an anti-TAA vote.

In fact, fast track’s advocates have become so desperate that they’re now making the logically absurd argument that if fast track is defeated, TAA will go down as well. In other words, if you scuttle the trade policies responsible for job destruction, programs that respond with a few flimsy band-aids for wounded labor markets will come to an end. As my father would have asked, “Is that a threat or a promise?”

Defeating fast track won’t swiftly cure all the trade woes ailing American workers. It doesn’t even guarantee defeating the TPP. But fast track’s demise certainly makes that outcome much more likely, and therefore at least reduces the odds of Washington doing further harm. These stakes explain why the offshoring lobby and its White House and Congressional supporters are tying common sense – not to mention themselves – up in knots. Therefore they explain why it would be so delicious, as well as economically encouraging, to see the fast track supporters fail. But however this trade saga ends, it’s great to see so many trade policy critics finally realize that threadbare handouts can’t possibly compensate for destructive trade policies.     

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Vivid Job Retraining Expose Doesn’t Tell the Half of It

Tags

healthcare, Jobs, manufacturing, reeducation, retraining, Trade, Trade Adjustment Assistance, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

New York Times reporter Timothy Williams’ article this morning did such a great job detailing the failings of a signature federal job training program that I almost hate to fault him for not mentioning the “bridge to the 21st century.” Nonetheless, it was a crucial omission, and the overwhelmingly false promise of such ballyhooed initiatives is impossible to understand fully without it.

The “bridge” was President Clinton’s phrase for the government policies he contended could meet the assorted challenges that would face the nation in the new millennium. But in the wake of still widespread anxiety over job loss from the new-ish NAFTA trade agreement and from ongoing import pressure from mercantilist Germany and especially Japan, it became best known for describing initiatives that would “help young people and adults to get the education and training they need…help Americans succeed at home and at work….”

The former president and close aides such as Robert Reich also touted the “bridge” concept repeatedly to convince liberal Democrats that Washington could pursue ever more trade expansion without devastating the middle and working class voters whose cause they long championed – and of course to sell trade liberalization to those voters themselves. In turn, most Congressional Republicans came to realize that they needed to back this and other so-called trade adjustment assistance programs to secure the Democratic votes to pass free trade agreements.

My 2001 book on globalization, The Race to the Bottom, presented a detailed debunking of these claims and hopes. In addition to summarizing the evidence showing that government job reeducation and retraining programs too rarely helped displaced workers get better jobs – when they got jobs at all – I pointed out that the United States wasn’t then (and isn’t now) the only country on earth understanding that workers need to be moved up education and skill ladders. Most other governments were seeking to give the same advantages to their own workers.

And since highly intelligent, trainable individuals exist everywhere on earth, and especially in the populous third world countries focused on by Clinton-era trade deals, the former president’s ambitious trade agenda was bound to expose even satisfactorily retrained Americans to competition from foreign counterparts who would long earn orders of magnitude less.

These and similar warnings are amply borne out in Williams’ report. Especially revealing is how none of the individual outrages he documents involves preparing workers for jobs in manufacturing – the highly paid sector where employment was hit hardest by Clinton era trade deals and their successors – and how the healthcare positions mainly advertised as adequate replacements generally pay so poorly that borrowers can’t even stay current on the loans typically needed to pay for classes.

But because the author neglected the full story of why programs like the Workforce Investment Act were developed and attracted bipartisan support to begin with, his readers can’t learn how fatally flawed they were from the start – and how they continue to be used cynically to help both Democrats and Republicans advance job-killing trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership sure to keep harming employment, wages, and the entire economy on net.