Tag: france

The Faux Compassion of Club Sarkozy

Shortly after President Obama signed his health care law, French president Nicolas Sarkozy offered this backhanded compliment to the United States: “Welcome to the club of countries that does not dump its sick people.

In this month’s Diplomat magazine (U.K.), I explain pourquoi c’est fou:

Every member of Sarkozy’s “club” has its stories of sick people who have been “dumped,” in one manner or another, despite laws that officially preclude such things from ever happening. In 2005, Canada’s Supreme Court wrote of its country’s Medicare system: “Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare…[T]here is unchallenged evidence that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.” The British, meanwhile, often seem more content to let the National Health Service shortchange its patients than to let an American lecture them about how often it happens.

The checkered history of government guarantees is why so many Americans – a majority, in fact – oppose President Obama’s new law, which they believe will move the United States even further from Sarkozy’s ideal world than it is now.

Presidents Obama and Sarkozy may prefer the false compassion of a government guarantee.  I’ll take the real thing.

Repeal the bill.

Obama Right on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Secretary Gates’s new guidelines for “don’t ask, don’t tell” are consistent with the Obama administration’s plan to alter—and eventually reverse—the misguided policy. Both the guidelines and their ultimate goal deserve broad public support.

In the nearly 17 years since it was enacted, DADT has impeded military effectiveness by prohibiting motivated and well-qualified individuals from serving their country.

A new generation of military leaders, both officers and enlisted, has seen the harm and injustice done by this policy, and is ready for change. As this cohort advances through the ranks, and as an earlier generation that was not willing to change retires from service, we should anticipate a relatively smooth transition to a policy that has been adopted in many other countries, including Australia, Canada, France, Israel, and the United Kingdom. But the strong leadership shown by President Obama, Secretary Gates, and Chairman Mullen on this issue will likely prove the essential final ingredient to ensuring that DADT dies.

Click the player below for more about why it is time to scrap the policy:

Global Markets Keep U.S. Economy Afloat

Three items in the news this week remind us why we should be glad we live in a more global economy. While American consumers remain cautious, American companies and workers are finding increasing opportunities in markets abroad:

  • Sales of General Motors vehicles continue to slump in the United States, but they are surging in China. The company announced this week that sales in China of GM-branded cars and trucks were up 67 percent in 2009, to 1.8 million vehicles. If current trends continue, within a year or two GM will be selling more vehicles in China than in the United States.
  • James Cameron’s 3-D movie spectacular “Avatar” just surpassed $1 billion in global box-office sales. Two-thirds of its revenue has come from abroad, with France, Germany, and Russia the leading markets. This has been a growing pattern for U.S. films. Hollywood—which loves to skewer business and capitalism—is thriving in a global market.
  • Since 2003, the middle class in Brazil has grown by 32 million. As the Washington Post reports, “Once hobbled with high inflation and perennially susceptible to worldwide crises, Brazil now has a vibrant consumer market …” Brazil’s overall economy is bigger than either India or Russia, and its per-capita GDP is nearly double that of China.

As I note in my Cato book Mad about Trade, American companies and workers will find their best opportunities in the future by selling to the emerging global middle class in Brazil, China, India and elsewhere. Without access to more robust markets abroad, the Great Recession of 2008-09 would have been more like the Great Depression.

The Start of Interstate Carbon Tariffs?

Not content with waiting for federal legislation on the matter, it seems that Minnesota has introduced a “carbon fee” of $4-$34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions on energy produced –mainly using coal – in North Dakota.  The fee is scheduled to go into effect in 2012. (see here)

North Dakota plans to challenge the new tax, which it rightly says will discourage the purchase of North Dakota power (that is, indeed, the whole point of the tariff). I’m no constitutional scholar, but Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution says that “No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws…” so the Minnesota tariff appears to be unconstitutional (for whatever that’s worth these days…), at least unless and until Congress gives its consent for it. 

On the one hand, the current political make-up of Congress would suggest that such consent might, disappointingly, be given. On the other, the cap-and-trade bill has stalled in Congress despite the wishes of the majority leadership and the administration, suggesting that the desire to regulate energy and greenhouse gas emissions is lacking crucial support.

In related news, another body supportive of carbon tariffs, the French government, has seen its plans thwarted recently after the Constitutional Court there struck down the proposed carbon tax as unconstitutional.  President Sarkozy had intented to extend the carbon tax EU-wide so as to prevent adverse competitiveness effects on French industry, thus giving the EU the incentive to apply a trade bloc-wide tariff on imports from less regulated countries. So the setback in France is good news for those of us concerned about the damage that carbon tariffs would do.

HT: Scott Lincicome

Department of Bad Analogies

US Ambassador's residence, ParisUS Ambassador’s residence, Paris

In the course of wondering whether it may not be so important that so few US government personnel speak Pashto, Spencer Ackerman writes:

You don’t have to speak French to craft a good U.S. France policy.

That’s a fair point, although many, many more U.S. diplomats dealing with France speak French than do the folks dealing with Afghanistan speak Pashto (or Dari, or…).  But the problem is that we don’t have a normal diplomatic relationship with Afghanistan – we’re trying to transform the entire society.  Counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen tells us Afghanistan is all part of a “global counterinsurgency.” [.pdf] This, of course, is a somewhat more ambitious job than blowing through the cocktail circuit in Paris.

Just to press the point, as only one of eight “best practices” for counterinsurgents, Kilcullen lists “cueing and synchronization of development, governance, and security efforts, building them in a simultaneous, coordinated way that supports the political strategy.”  Another COIN guru, John Nagl writes [.pdf] that “The soldiers who will win these wars require an ability not just to dominate land operations, but to change whole societies…”

In short, we probably ought to distinguish between France and Afghanistan.

It Is Good to Be the King: Taxpayers Pay $413,000 for French President’s Unused Luxury Shower

Bastien François, a professor of political science at the Sorbonne, writes that “The French political system is incomprehensible to the rest of the world… In France we call it a republican monarchy. That phrase says it all.”

Indeed, according to the press, a £250,000 ($413,000) shower with air conditioning and radio surround sound that was “built to the exact specifications of the French President Nicolas Sarkozy” was paid for by the EU taxpayer during the French Presidency of the European Union in July 2008.

 It was “disposed of soon afterwards, unused, together with most of the equipment bought for the £16million ($26 million) conference.” The press also reported “other expenses included £1million ($1.65 million) spent on the opening dinner alone - more than £23,000 ($38,000) for each of the 43 heads of state.”

War without Killing?

The United States is going to cut back on airstrikes in Afghanistan, according to the new commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. This decision comes on the heels of Central Command’s release (late on a Friday afternoon) of the executive summary of a report on the killing of dozens – at least – of civilians in Farah Province in Western Afghanistan. On May 4, a B-1B providing air support to US and Afghan forces there bombed some buildings, thinking that they contained insurgents. The buildings were apparently full of civilians.

Everyone seems to think this is a wise policy shift. The center of gravity in an insurgency, we’re often told, is the population. You need their support to find and defeat insurgents. Killing people undermines their support for the occupier and the government. You often hear the same thing about airstrikes in Pakistan.

This is a sensible argument, but it has some problems.  For one, empirics to support it are hard to come by. Second, it isn’t obvious that people cooperate with occupiers or governments because they like them. Support may come instead from the mix of incentives – coercive and economic – that the population faces.  The power to reward and punish behavior probably matters more in generating cooperation than feelings of loyalty, although they are not mutually exclusive.

You might respond that it is simply immoral to kill innocent people, whatever the strategic effects. That takes us to the real trouble with the critique of airstrikes, which is the idea that you can fight clean wars.

The accidental killing of Afghan civilians is a tragedy we should limit (one way to do so might be to simply stop using bombers for close air support).  It is also an inevitable consequence of fighting a war in Afghanistan. Troops are going to use plentiful and occasionally indiscriminate firepower to defend themselves. This problem can be mitigated but not solved. You should not support the war in Afghanistan if you cannot support killing innocent people in prosecuting it. As Harvey Sapolsky (my professor at MIT) points out on his new blog, the allies killed 50,000 French civilians in the course of liberating France in World War II. Today precision munitions save many civilians, but, along with euphemistic words like state-building, they threaten to delude us into thinking that we can fight antiseptic wars that adhere to liberal norms. (The situation is even worse in Germany, where they are arguing about whether to call what they are doing in Afghanistan a war).

As Sapolsky puts it:

Air power is our advantage, especially in a country where our forces are spread thin and the distances are large. Precautions have limited greatly the number of weapons dropped and how air power is employed. But only a little deception apparently is needed to put this advantage in jeopardy. Soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan. If there is no will to inflict casualties then there should be no will in absorbing them. Try as we may to avoid it, war kills the innocent.

For the source of this post’s title see the first article (pdf) here.