Friday News Roundup — September 13, 2019
Ike’s Lessons for China Strategy; SCOTUS Rules on Asylum Policy; plus news you may have missed
Greetings from Washington, where Congress is back in session following the late summer recess. Following the latest Congressional calendar, there are 48 days in session remaining in 2019 for the Senate and 39 days in session remaining for the House. Squeezed into those days will be funding bills to keep the government running into FY2020, preliminary hearings on impeachment, other investigations into the administration, continued personnel and judicial nominations, and whatever other crises or scandals may arise. This week’s special election results in North Carolina provided partisans on both sides with plenty of fodder to spin, but the clear takeaway was the growing, and ever more rigid divide between increasingly blue cities and suburbs versus deep red rural areas. And then, there’s last night’s debate — the first with all of the Democratic 2020 contenders on the same stage — where the tenor whipsawed from messages of unity to testy policy debates. The ultimate takeaway: things are going to keep heating up with each tick closer to 2020.
While all of that is ongoing, CSPC has continued its work to address strategic policy challenges. Earlier in the week, CSPC Senior Fellow James Kitfield and Mike Rogers Center Director Joshua Huminski weighed in at Defense One on the lessons learned from our hasty withdrawal from Iraq and what it means for the administration’s goal of withdrawing forces from Afghanistan.
This week, we’ve also released the second report from our Geotech program covering the 21st century geopolitical competition for technology leadership, entitled, “Geotech: Fostering Competitiveness for Technological Competition.”
The full report can be read on our website, but in this week’s roundup, Dan looks at the report’s analysis of the unclear strategic future for the U.S.-China relationship and how the historical model of Eisenhower’s Project Solarium can be applied.
Following that, Chris covers the latest SCOTUS decision on the Trump administration’s changes to U.S. asylum policies, and we wrap, as always, with news you may have missed. Finally, we’d like to welcome the first of our fall interns, Caitlin Hevesy from George Washington University and Yoshikawa Heima from Pepperdine University. Keep an eye out for their contributions to the roundup in the coming weeks!
Applying the “Solarium Model” to U.S.-China Relations
Dan Mahaffee
If there’s one thing you need to know about CSPC, it’s that we like Ike. Part of it is, of course, that CSPC was founded at the behest of President Eisenhower, but we have also long-admired how the Supreme Allied Commander-turned-President applied clear strategic planning principles throughout his administration. During the early years of the Cold War, these efforts, embodied in the Project Solarium process, would ultimately craft the strategic framework for how the United States would confront the Soviet Union.
This week, CSPC released the latest report from our Geotech program covering the intersection of geopolitical and technological competition between open societies and authoritarian regimes. Nowhere is this competition more apparent, and more heated, than between the United States and China. As John Pomfret, former Washington Post Beijing Bureau chief, notes, “the architecture of Washington’s relationship with Beijing is crumbling, and so far no alternative model is emerging to replace it.”
At a time when these tensions are growing, the absence of alternative models has both policymakers and private sector leaders flying blind. Both parties agree on the need for a tougher approach towards China, yet the strategic vision for U.S.-China relations is missing. Nor, as we often find, will the 2020 electoral debate serve as the needed forum for thoughtful strategy-making. Therefore, it’s time to dust off the old Eisenhower playbook and apply the Solarium model to the future of Sino-American relations.
First, let’s look at both the context for Project Solarium and its structure. With the Korean War in a bloody stalemate, President Eisenhower convened leading national security thinkers to develop a long-term strategy for the Cold War. The participants were divided into teams to address various scenarios for the course of the Cold War and develop strategic options. Team A focused on a strategic scenario that would focus largely on covert and diplomatic methods to counter the Soviets and bolster a U.S.-led alliance structure; Team B focused on a more muscular approach which would be military-focused, with less of a focus on alliances and a greater emphasis on U.S. conventional and nuclear military capabilities; Team C was to evaluate the strategic options for “rolling back” the Soviet Union using any means possible; and Team D was quickly folded into the other teams as advisors rejected its scenario as unfeasible — issuing a two-year ultimatum to Moscow to change course under threat of war.
Via Project Solarium, the Eisenhower administration was able to evaluate these various strategic scenarios, and these efforts informed what would become Eisenhower’s “New Look” foreign policy. Under this framework, the United States would position itself for long-term competition with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union would be contained through increased U.S. military mobilization — commensurate with the long-term health of the U.S. economy — as well as alliances that would counter the Soviet bloc. With this structure in place to deter military adventurism by the Soviets, the United States would then seek to win the Cold War through political engagement and victory in the “battle of ideas” rather than nuclear conflict.
Eisenhower famously said, “plans are useless, but planning is essential.”
Applying the same framework to the future of the U.S.-China relationship could allow policymakers to evaluate the military, economic, technological, and political dynamics of outcomes. These outcomes could include: an extension of the status quo, possible competition in some areas with cooperation in others, or a total decoupling that leads to what could be described as the Cold War 2.0. Compared to Eisenhower’s Project Solarium, a contemporary effort would require a greater emphasis on the role of the private sector and technology innovators — given that the economic tradeoffs are even greater in an era of intertwined global economies and supply chains, as well as the fact that private enterprise is often on the front lines of today’s Geotech competition. Like Eisenhower’s efforts, this examination would also provide an opportunity to evaluate how our alliances and partnerships can best be leveraged, given that our allies also face a more complex array of economic and security tradeoffs when they consider how close they are to Washington or Beijing. Finally, it could examine a range of policy tools available to bolster competitiveness, harness innovation, and ensure the openness and dynamism that will win the technological competition and the 21st century “battle of ideas.”
Eisenhower famously said, “plans are useless, but planning is essential.” The ultimate course of the Cold War would be far more complex than the scope of any exercise, but the framework of Solarium represents the gold standard for tackling a long-term strategic challenge. Just like the early days of the Cold War, the United States again finds itself at a strategic crossroads — one that will determine the 21st century balance of power. If we are to prevail, it’s past time to start planning.
SCOTUS Allows Trump Asylum Rules
Chris Condon
In July, the Trump administration announced an amendation to executive asylum policy. In order to stem the flow of Central and South American asylum seekers into the United States, the administration decided to prohibit granting asylum in the United Statesunless the applicant first attempted to seek asylum in the country they passed through to physically arrive at the U.S. border. The rule met a flurry of legal challenges, culminating in a nationwide injunction by a federal district court. This injunction was limited to the borders of the 9th Judicial Circuit by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but that panel decided to let the case play out in the district court before making a final judgement. This wednesday, the Supreme Court disagreed; in a 7–2 ruling, the Court blocked the lower court’s injunction entirely, opening the gates for the administration’s policy change.
Since the president’s inauguration, the administration has faced criticism and legal trouble regarding its immigration policy. Especially on its treatment of detained immigrants, the government has been unyielding to criticism and has fought legal challenges tooth and nail. The new asylum rule is no different; the government will not allow people to apply for asylum unless they have applied for asylum somewhere else and been denied. The administration argues that a refusal by asylum seekers to apply in Mexico before reaching the southern border of the United States makes their claim of urgency dubious, and that America cannot absorb large numbers of asylum seekers without them being filtered through other Central American nations first.
U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar was unconvinced. After hearing arguments from both parties in the case, Tigar found that the order was contradictory to existing asylum laws, which only require that someone be physically present to apply for asylum and do not impose restrictions on the conditions under which someone may apply. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was skeptical of Judge Tigar’s nationwide injunction, but also saw the flaws in the government’s argument; they decided to limit the injunction to the borders of the 9th Circuit, which encompasses California and Arizona. Judge Tigar defied the 9th Circuit by seeking to reinstate his nationwide injunction, to which the 9th Circuit responded by reinforcing their limits. At this point, the parties in the legal proceedings are litigating on three levels: the district court is holding hearings to gather more facts on the case, the 9th Circuit is being briefed on the government’s appeal against the injunction, and the Supreme Court has now ruled on the matter.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor mentioned this complex legal web in her dissent against the Court’s allowance for the new rule’s enforcement. She also opined that it is highly irregular for the Supreme Court to preempt lower courts by issuing a ruling before litigation in lower courts is complete, and that doing so did not allow the Court to grasp the issue fully. Although the majority did not provide reasoning behind their decision, Justice Sotomayor was joined by Justice Ginsburg in refuting the merits of the administration’s case. First, as mentioned above, she found the order to be contradictory to federal asylum law. While the statute requires only that someone be physically present to apply for asylum, the government seeks to impose restrictive criteria on applicants. Further, the order only considers whether someone has passed through Mexico without taking into consideration their level of safety or permanency. Sotomayor calls this a “blunt approach,” and seemingly agrees with the district court that it is inconsistent with the more lenient federal statute.
Next, Justice Sotomayor takes issue with the method by which the government implemented the rule. When executive departments make significant changes in policy, precedent dictates that they allow for a period of public comment to solicit feedback on the efficacy of the rule change. In implementing this change to asylum rules, the administration did not provide any notice or allow for comments, which the district court found to be dubious. Lastly, Sotomayor cites the district court’s issues with the assumption that asylum seekers should seek asylum in other nations they pass through. While the administration treats as a given the proposition that those fleeing instability and danger could settle in Mexico, the district court found this to be rife with errors. In essence, Sotomayor echoes Judge Tigar in his chastisement of the government.
While the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce this new rule by a wide margin, Justice Sotomayor provided a forceful dissenting voice. The wider legal battle over the order is also a microcosm for the country’s larger difficulties with immigration policy, and the ethos of the nation regarding the rights of non-citizens. While the government continues to crack down on those seeking life in America in line with President Trump’s preferences, others may view this as a harsh action against undeserving people.
News You May Have Missed
Administration Considers Combatting Homelessness in California
It seems that California’s famous homelessness problem has drawn the attention of the Trump administration. This week, officials from the Department of Housing and Urban Development visited Los Angeles to speak with local officials about the growing crisis, which has especially affected cities on the west coast in recent years. Even in the face of billions of dollars of government spending to alleviate the problem, homelessness has grown 16% over just the past year in Los Angeles. Alameda County, where Oakland is located, saw a 43% increase last year. In the face of a serious and mounting crisis, the federal government has said they will take any necessary and proper steps to assist local officials in finding solutions.
Did Boris Lie to the Queen? Bye Bye, Bercow!?
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is denying allegations that he lied to Queen Elizabeth II when his government asked for the controversial prorogation of parliament until just before the October 31st Brexit deadline. This comes after Scotland’s Court of Session, its highest civil court, declared the action unlawful. With England’s High Court ruling that it was lawful, it is now up for the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court to weigh in with the final ruling. Additionally, the PM is already facing the conundrum of whether to obey the recently passed parliamentary law requiring him to seek a further Brexit delay. Centuries ago, this could have all led up to the Prime Minister enjoying a stay in the Tower of London, but now it remains to be seen how Britain will deal with its latest Brexit developments. As a final Brexit update, Commons Speaker, the Rt. Hon. John Bercow, announced that he will be stepping down at the next election or October 31st. Beloved by viewers for his basso cries of “order” and rapier-tongued admonishment of unruly MPs, the Conservatives threatened to run a candidate against the Speaker—a position occupied by a nonpartisan MP who traditionally runs unopposed.
Following the Death of Sahar Khodayari, Iranians Demand Changes to Stadium Rules Barring Women
29-year old Sahar Khodayari was a passionate fan of the Esteghlal soccer team, and when her team was playing an exhibition match earlier in the year, Ms. Khodayari entered the stadium in disguise, violating the Islamic Republic of Iran’s legal restrictions that bar women from attending sporting events. Arrested and facing a six-month prison sentence, Ms. Khodayari protested in front of the courthouse through self-immolation. With burns covering 90 percent of her body, Ms. Khodayari passed away in a Tehran hospital this week. On social media, #BlueGirl trended — blue being Esteghlal’s colors — as Iranians vented their grief over her death and their anger at the regime’s laws. Iranian athletes have shared in the outcry, and pressure has mounted on both the Iranian government, as well as soccer’s international governing body FIFA, to bring an end to the ban on women spectators.
Whistleblower Exposes Waste in Guantanamo Bay
While the Department of Defense is not necessarily known for their frugality, a new report from a whistleblower details massive waste in the Department’s high-security detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay. The report details that the facility has cost $6 billion to operate since it opened in 2001, and still has a annual budget of $380 million. That means that the facility is spending $9.5 million per prisoner per year to keep the facility open. These costs may seem ridiculous, but when you consider the charter jets carrying a handful of people to the island, the reasons start to come into focus. On top of that, there are the legal fees, which total nearly $6 million per year. Thus, American taxpayers continue to shell $380 million a year with no clear resolution in sight.
A Full Moon on Friday the 13th
We all have our superstitions, but none seem to loom larger than Fridays that happen to fall on the 13th and full moons. In a rare coincidence, tonight will enjoy a full moon on Friday the 13th, an event that hasn’t happened since October 13, 2000, and won’t reoccur until August 13, 2049. A quick “on this date in history” search didn’t find anything too notable about October 13, 2000, but enjoy using it as an excuse for any weird events today.
The views of contributors are their own, and not that of CSPC.
