Friday News Roundup — February 8, 2019: Remembering John Dingell; the Remaining Hurdles in U.S.-China Trade Talks; Europe Looks to Get Around Iran Sanctions; the INF Treaty & Presidential Powers; plus Stories You May Have Missed
Greetings from Washington, where we mourn the passing of a legend, Rep. John Dingell. In this week’s roundup, we start by remembering the legacy of the longest serving Congressman in U.S. history.
Earlier in the week, much of the attention was on President Trump’s State of the Union and the “applause” from Speaker Pelosi. While it appears that any window for bipartisanship quickly closed, negotiations continue on border security and avoiding another government shutdown. Dan covered the political theater of the State of the Union and prospects for solving our nation’s problems in The Hill, so today’s roundup goes into the latest on the U.S.-China trade talks and the thorny issues that remain unresolved; the measures being set up by Europe and Iran to continue the nuclear deal in the face of U.S. sanctions; how the INF treaty withdrawal presages a broader debate about presidential treaty powers; and, as always, we wrap up with stories you may have missed.
Remembering John Dingell
Glenn Nye
Representative John Dingell was one of the legends of American politics. The longest serving Member of the House of Representatives in the U.S. history, his tenure as a Congressman spanned the Eisenhower Administration to the Obama Administration. Serving his nation long before he entered office—with stints as a U.S. House Page and a U.S. Army Officer in World War II—he demonstrated the principles of leadership, character, and compromise of a true public servant.
During his time in Congress, he helped shepherd legislation that protected clean air and water, food safety, and health care. He served the people of Southeast Michigan knowing that Detroit was one of the major engines of the American economy.
His tenure also reminds us of a time when Congressional Committee Chairmen held sway on the Hill. As a powerful Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he is remembered for describing his jurisdiction as, “if it moves, it’s energy; if it doesn’t, it’s commerce.” Still, Congressman Dingell knew that in order to serve his constituents, and the American people as a whole, our leaders had to work across the aisle to find solutions.
We will miss Congressman Dingell, and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Congresswoman Deborah Dingell, and his family.
U.S.-China Trade Talks Face Obstacles over IP, Structural Issues
Dan Mahaffee
Markets reacted negatively on Thursday to news that the U.S. and China may not reach an agreement on trade by the March 1 deadline after which U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports would increase to 25%.
While there has been progress on issues related to manufactured goods and increased purchases of agricultural commodities, broader concerns remain about intellectual property protections, forced technology transfer, and fundamental structural issues with the Chinese economy. As key segments of the economy on both sides of the Pacific start to feel the pain, how these issues are resolved are key to the trade negotiations and the future economic balance-of-power.
With markets reflecting the uncertainty of the trade deal, we are also seeing broader signs of the trade dispute starting to bite. Combined with low commodity prices and rising interest rates, the trade dispute is starting to hit the farm belt, with bankruptcies rising and concerns about further shocks to farmers. China faces its own concerns about its slowing economy at a time when it seeks to restructure away from export-led growth and move up the international value chain.
Farmers and manufacturing workers were key constituencies in President Trump’s election victory, and Chinese concessions in agriculture and manufacturing have helped to prolong the trade talks and avoid tariff hikes, but the sticking point will be the technologies of the future and leadership in that domain. Chinese policies have long sought to close the gap with the West in terms of advanced technology. Policies forcing technology transfer as part of joint partnerships has been one tool that China has used — and it has drawn the ire of EU trade officials as well as the U.S. trade negotiators. The examples of Huawei and ZTE’s approach to 5G networks and the indictments related to Fujian Jinhua demonstrate how China is using IP theft and outright espionage to meet its technology and economic policy goals. Even if a deal is reached, the enforcement of IP protection and measures to counter China’s structural support for its tech companies will remain a tall order.
In some ways, these structural reforms would benefit Chinese leaders as they seek to reform their economic model. External pressure from the United States and our Western partners would provide leverage for Chinese economic reformers to tackle reforms that some constituencies within the Chinese Communist Party resist. Beyond that, though, the broader competition over the future of key technologies cannot be ignored.
For China, leadership in innovative technologies is a fundamental goal of the Xi Jinping regime. Technologies such as AI, 5G networks, and quantum computing are seen as vital tools for China’s future economic and military power. Already, some of these technologies are utilized for internal control, and the Chinese technology model is setting an example for other authoritarians around the world.
As trade negotiators move beyond manufacturing and agriculture to get to issues related to technology, they will run into the barrier that is less about trade, and more about China’s strategy for the future. While enforceable trade mechanisms are one important part of addressing competition with China — and managing our economic codependence — we may have to begin to look beyond trade and begin the process of a broader reckoning on what the shape of Sino-American relations will take.
Europe Begins to Walk the Walk on Preserving the Iran Deal
Michael Stecher
The Islamic Republic of Iran, President Trump declared in his State of the Union address this week, does “bad, bad things.” Containing — and some might argue overthrowing — the Iranian regime has been a central element of the Trump administration’s policy since taking office, most notably in the administration’s stalwart opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, and moves to reimplement and expand unilateral sanctions. In this, President Trump finds himself at odds with America’s closest allies: the United States seeks to choke of all trade with Iran in order to extract political concessions and Europe wants to allow the Iranian people to continue to receive the economic benefits promised to them in exchange for ending their nuclear weapons program. Last Thursday, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (the so-called “E3”) announced that they would take extraordinary steps to allow European firms to trade around U.S. sanctions in order to try and keep Iran in compliance with the nuclear deal.
Sanctions are not a tool that is only available to American policymakers, but the United States’s unique position at the center of the global financial system makes unilateral sanctions particularly effective across a wide range of targets. Most financial institutions, and certainly ones with the capability to facilitate international trade for clients, need access to U.S. Dollar-denominated markets in order to do business and the U.S. government uses its oversight responsibilities for those markets to bludgeon firms that enable sanctions evasion. Thomson Reuters estimated that banks were fined over $15 billion for sanctions violations from 2010–2017.
The Europeans, finding themselves at odds with American policy but constrained by America’s unique position, have created a new vehicle to help local firms operate in the face of American sanctions. On January 31, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom announced the launch of the Instrument for Supporting Trade Exchanges (INSTEX), a special purpose vehicle (SPV) designed to facilitate “legitimate” trade with Iran, beginning with “the sectors most essential to the Iranian population — such as pharmaceuticals, medical devices and agri-food goods.” These goods are allowed under American sanctions because of their humanitarian nature, but many firms that deal in them have been reluctant to trade with Iran for fear of being cut off by their banking institutions.
INSTEX will interface with a vehicle to be created by the Iranian government to act as a non-cash medium of exchange. The European Council on Foreign Relations has a breakdown of how this trade might work: a buyer of Iranian pistachios would pay money to INSTEX, a seller of medicine to Iran would receive the money from INSTEX. This all works as long as the trade balances are roughly even, which they are for food but not for medical supplies, for example, so additional policy steps like adding other countries or sources of funds to the program.
INSTEX may also fail if European companies do not want to take advantage of it. Multinational firms or ones with substantial U.S.-facing business may not want to risk angering the Justice Department, and the U.S. government has gotten more inventive in pressuring small firms. As U.S. Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook [awesomely] described it, INSTEX could be a “reverse Field of Dreams; if you build it, they will not come.”
The problem, however, is that both outcomes are fraught. If the new payment mechanism fails, the Iranian government may decide that the United States’s implacable opposition means that coexistence is impossible, restart its nuclear weapons program, and prepare for war. Conversely, if the SPV works, the Trump administration will have pushed the Europeans to openly circumvent sanctions, providing a blueprint for other cases, and thus blunt one of its most useful foreign policy tools. The White House needs to decide how much it is willing to risk to achieve its somewhat nebulous goals with regards to Iran.
“Treaties, You See, Are Like Girls and Roses…”
Chris Condon
In a 2011 op-ed, now-National Security Advisor John Bolton decried the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as antiquated and unfair to the interests of the United States. He also advocated for U.S. withdrawal from the treaty wholesale, rather than a simple renegotiation of its terms, just as he had facilitated in the case of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. He drew on former French President Charles de Gaulle in his justification, who one said that “[t]reaties, you see, are like girls and roses; they last while they last.” This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the case of Mr. Bolton, who tends to strangle international accords in the crib.
On February 1st, 2019, the Trump administration officially announced their intent to withdraw from the INF Treaty. This announcement follows months of rumblings from President Trump about a withdrawal from the decades-old compact, which was covered by our own illustrious Mr. Mahaffee in October. Rather than repeating his apt analysis of the strategic and defense implications of the treaty’s demise, I would like to analyze the constitutional questions involved in abandoning treaty obligations.
Article II of the Constitution of the United States states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” It does not, however, make any provision for withdrawal of the United States from a treaty that has previously been established. Although the Supreme Court ruled in the Head Money Cases (1884) that Congress could modify or repeal any treaty through federal statute and in Reid v. Covert (1957) that treaties in conflict with the Constitution can be rendered void by the courts, they made no such judgment for the ability of the Executive Branch to cancel a treaty.
In fact, the issue of the president’s ability to unilaterally withdraw the United States from a treaty has come before the Court only once, during Goldwater v. Carter in 1979. In that case, members of Congress challenged President Carter’s unilateral withdrawal from a defense pact with Taiwan in service of warming relations with China. The Court ultimately decided that, although the issue may be an important one, it was a squabble between the political branches, and was therefore nonjusticiable. Since Congress had not rendered a formal complaint through proper procedures, they argued, it was not the prerogative of the judiciary to decide the matter. Justice Brennan wrote in dissent that “[t]he issue of decision-making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts.”
However strong Justice Brennan’s sentiment was, the Supreme Court has never heeded his advice, and the implication of their silence is clear especially in President George W. Bush’s aforementioned 2002 withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In that case, the president single-handedly withdrew the United States from a treaty ratified by the Senate, without a substantial challenge from a Congress narrowly controlled by Republicans to assert its authority.
Although the administration faces a resurgent Democratic majority in the House and a faction of Republican senators who are willing to voice concerns with the president’s foreign policy priorities, it seems unlikely that Congress will challenge President Trump’s authority to withdraw from the INF Treaty. The Democratic leadership has made little mention of the President’s decision, being distracted by pressing matters such as the border wall dispute, and Republicans are unlikely to challenge a president from their own party on this point.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, however, may be a case in which we see this question play out fully on the current political field. As one of the centerpieces of American foreign policy orthodoxy, the alliance is a jewel in the crown of foreign policy experts, and presidential threats of American withdrawal have prompted bipartisan backlash. If the president were to formally withdraw the United States from the defense pact, it is more likely that members of Congress would assert their foreign policy authority and push back on the Chief Executive’s will.
The aforementioned constitutional ambiguity would doubtlessly come into play in this case, and the Supreme Court would face a momentous and complex separation of powers question. Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith take an in-depth look at the North Atlantic Treaty question through the lens of Congress’ recent NATO Support Act. In their piece, they contemplate the constitutionality of such a measure, asking the fundamental question of whether or not Congress can directly restrict the President’s power to withdraw from treaties in this case. They conclude that without direct congressional objection, the President does have the power to unilaterally withdraw from NATO. However, with the passage of the Support Act, the answer becomes less clear; they also note that like Goldwater v. Carter, the Court may deem the question political and non-justiciable.
Stories You May Have Missed
Andrew Cuomo Champions A More “Neutral” Policy
Alec Mancini
New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo included a proposal in his 2020 budget request that would require internet providers that serve the Empire State to abide by “net neutral” standards. This is a response to the FCC’s December 2017 rollback of net neutrality laws, which opponents argue could allow internet service providers to limit consumer access to the internet. New York State is trying to leverage the power of its large population and concentration of corporate power to write rules that will influence national policy. In a sense, this is the same as the abortion rights rules that dominated coverage in Albany this week: New York is trying to use local lawmaking to influence national policy. It is a blue state states’ right argument.
Russia Cracks Down on Jehovah’s Witnesses
On February 6th, a Russian court sentenced a Danish Jehovah’s Witness named Dennis Christensen to six years in prison for conducting activities under the banner of his religious organization. The Russian government has labeled all Jehovah’s Witness groups as extremist amidst a crackdown on religious terrorism, with the Russian Supreme Court ruling in 2017 that the church could not lawfully operate in any capacity within Russia. The recent actions by Russia against religious minorities have raised concerns over religious freedom in the Russian Federation.
Guaidó Set to Name New Citgo Board
In an effort to wrest control of Venezuela’s vast oil wealth away from strongman Nicolás Maduro, Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó is preparing to name a new board for Citgo, the U.S.-based subsidiary of the country’s national petroleum company. In an interview, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that Guaidó could name a new board as early as this week, and that said board would be recognized as legitimate under U.S. law. The new government has voiced concerns over a possible gutting of Citgo by foreign creditors, one of which is the Russian state-owned OAO Rosneft. If the Kremlin were to take ownership of their portion of Citgo, they could gain access to a crucial American energy asset.
U.S. Cuts Aid to Cameroon Over Human Rights Concerns
The Trump administration announced on February 6 that they would eliminate approximately $17 million in military aid to the government of Cameroon in the face of mounting evidence of human rights abuses. The aid was utilized at least in part by the central African country to combat the influence of Boko Haram, a terrorist organization that has wreaked havoc throughout Africa in recent years. A State Department official communicated the administration’s position on the matter, stating: “We continue to urge the Cameroonian government to take all credible allegations of gross violations of human rights seriously, investigate those allegations thoroughly, hold accountable the perpetrators of such abuses, and disclose the outcome of the investigations to the people of Cameroon.”
France Recalls Ambassador to Italy
The French government recalled its ambassador to the Italian Republic on February 7 after a tense exchange between the two countries. Italy’s populist government, led by the populist Five-Star Movement, has vocally supported the “Yellow Vest” protests in France in the past, but stepped further into the fray this week. Luigi Di Maio, Italy’s deputy prime minister, met with leaders of the group on February 5, issuing a statement accusing France of implementing policies that impoverish their former colonies in Africa. Di Maio also urged French voters to oppose President Emmanuel Macron, a rare foray into the national politics of a fellow EU member and a severe breach of European norms. The insult did not go unnoticed by the French government, which declared: “For several months France has been the subject of repeated accusations, unfounded attacks and outrageous declarations. This is unprecedented since the end of the war.”
Man Chokes Mountain Lion to Death in Self-Defense
This week, an unidentified man was attacked by a mountain lion while hiking in Horsetooth Mountain Open Space in Colorado. While you might expect this story to have a gruesome ending for the man, he escaped the scene with only non-life threatening injuries. After being attacked from behind by the big cat and sustaining bites to his arm and face, the man wheeled around and broke free from the mountain lion, choking it to death with his bare hands. Mark Leslie, the manager of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s northeastern region, said in regard to the encounter: “In the event of a lion attack, you need to do anything in your power to fight back, just as this gentleman did.”
