Signing Statements and Pantomimes

The implementation of Indo-US nuclear deal is an object lesson for India as to how not to conduct business with US. First Bush and Singh conclude the deal, Bush conceding 'x' to India. US Senate which has the sole constitutional authority to ratify treaties and with the House, the sole prerogative to make law, subtracts 'y' from the 'x' and adds 'z' which were not in the deal.

Singh without making a big fuss about the 'y' and 'z' mildy protests. Then Bush takes out his weapon of choice: the presidential signing statement. In the last 6 years of all the bills Bush signed into law, he has effectuated his power of veto exactly once. Does it mean he likes all those legislations coming out of the Congress? No. When he doesn't like certain provisions, instead of vetoing the bill, he issues a signing statement. In that statement, he declares his intention to bypass, violate, ignore those provisions he is in disagreement with, treating the law he just signed and obligated, like a fruit salad.

This practice though has a very limited precedence in very limited scope, is rampant and widepsread now. The constitutionality of this practice is very much in question and there is a case pending before the US Supreme Court brought by none other than the American Bar Association to repudiate and disallow him to get around the law with these dubious, legless signing statements. Depending on the mood of Justice Kennedy on the day of hearings, Bush may lose the case. If indeed Bush's position prevails, there is a decent chance that his successor may not pursue the challenge with the same vigor when it re-emerges under different form. But don't bet on it. Democrats and Republicans when they are in White House, seem to hold a widening view of Presidential power.

Now coming back to Singh's 'happiness' expressed today at Bush's clarifications, on our end of the deal, the 'y's that are removed and the 'z's that are added are impinging upon a lame duck President's (with 2 years remaining) dubious 'signing statements' the constitutionality of which is pending before the US Supreme Court. Way to go!

The following is an email I wanted to send to a friend of mine in late 2004, but by mistake sent it to myself. There you go, the Freudian slip. But any way, here it is which I thought is relevant for the current times

• For the past 2-3 years, the US federal budget deficit is increasing and is at the level of 4% of GDP. Though the figure in percentage terms appears lower, in a $12 trillion economy its a lot. I think the US debt is at $22 trillion or some astronomical figure. 30% with Chinese & Japanese govts, 23% with foreign individuals. Any other economy or currency would have been dumped in a jiffy with this level of debt/deficit. The reason why it is going on so far is, because of the "faith" people have, in the "ability" of US to pay back.
  
  Once that faith is lost US bonds will be dumped like hot potatoes. History is witness to Argentine meltdown, East asia crisis that some small unpredictable event triggers the whole thing. When will the tipping point occur is a bet hard to take. If that happens the dollar will slide to something very low. To prevent it US has to take some or most of the following
  
  1. Reduce spending drastically. Some of the big ticket items are
  a. Military spending($440 billion). Not a good chance with the "war on terror" going on
  b. Social security, medicare benefits ($400 billion). There will be a revolution with the baby boomers retiring. Already its kinda hanging loose.
  c. Agricultural subsidies ($336 billion) all given mostly to the "red state" big farmers and agri corporations. Another political imponderable.
  
  2. Grow the economy and increase revenues
  Easier said than done. To offset the deficits US GDP has to grow at additional 4%
  Keeping up with the current rate of 3+/- .5 % itself is difficult, a 12 trillion economy growing at the rate of 7.5% is unimaginable.
  
  3. As a final option this seems comical but possible. Go to war with your creditors :)

Baker Hamilton Commission – A Washington Drama

The gruesomeness of the tragedy unfolding in Iraq is only exceeded by the incredulous comical posturing exhibited by the players in Washington. The current episode that is running in theatres is called the “Iraq Study Group – A thesis in Policy Output Synthesis with Feedback, Theatrics and Sound Bytes” by Ms. Baker, Hamilton et al.

It is necessary however to rehash the circumstances under which this study was commissioned. Post 9-11 Bush started to look for potential enemies of United States that might get some ideas from 9-11 that may launch dubbed versions of it (which was perpetrated by a band of freelancers with box cutters and approximately $500,000). A capability-intention matrix of nations/actors that could harm the US thru terrorism was drawn. Saddam Hussein in control of an oil rich state with his established animosity (rightly or wrongly) for US and its interests thus ended up in the cross hairs of that matrix.

The primary criticism of the Bush administration, even among the supporters of war is that having decided to remove Saddam, there was no careful planning done for the post-war occupation. But this criticism is not germane to the issue and totally misses the point. The intention going in was never to support a democracy or create a stable government in Saddam’s place. You don’t plan for something that you are not planning to do. The intention I believe was to hand over power to a motley group of exiles/army officers who would keep the oil flowing and get the heck out. However the events in the ground quickly metamorphosed into something totally unmanageable. The current head-ache over Shia/Sunni/Kurd divisions in Iraq was by and large an American creation resultant from the 2 lines drawn in Iraqi sand: 36th parallel northwards and the 33rd parallel southwards after Gulf War I creating No Fly Zones in Kurdish and Shia areas. This is a typical pattern evident in the conduct of US foreign policy when a set of actions are (partially) successful but become stumbling blocks for the next steps. But I digress.

The Bush Administration contrary to its hoary Churchillian rhetoric has been always drawing down troops and intent on a silent fade away into the sunset. Bush keeps saying ‘Iraq is the central front on the war’ on terror, but if you observe the commitment in terms of troops and political energy it befits the motives I laid out here. The democrats are not intent on ‘solving’ this ‘problem’ either. They secretly share Bush’s motive in getting quietly out of Iraq but they are intent on pinning down this ‘failure’ on Bush and Republicans’ neck. The main problem he faces is the high visibility the violence is getting in US media. However that problem is a minor migraine for him compared to the nuclear situation in Iran and its implications for Israel.

So what do politicians the world over do when they are confronted by a ‘problem’ that they don’t think is a problem? Appoint a commission! That’s how the Baker-Hamilton commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker III was born. The mandate for the commission was to take an objective look at the situation from the outside of the US Government and come up with a set of proposals. If Iraq is the central problem for this administration, do they really need a “commission” to tell them how to improve the situation that they know more about than anybody else and are morally and constitutionally bound to? The answer to this rhetorical question is borne by the delicate pantomime enacted by the commission.

First the commission refuses to publish its report before the elections lest it be thought that ‘it is politically motivated’. Goodness Gracious! So a valuable 2 months period when violence is Iraq is raging is lost when indeed if the commission’s suggestions are implementation worthy, they would come out probably past their expiry date. The next joke is the commission met with the cabinet and discussed to gauge their reaction to their recommendations. So Bush says to them “if you are going to propose x,y and z that would not be acceptable to me regardless of the fact that I was the one who tasked you to come up with x, y and z.:” Then the commission backs off and silently leaks portions of its report (of course to NY Times) to get political weight behind it. Then Bush says ’Oh you are playing the leak game ah ? Let me play mine’. Then he lets his national security adviser leak a memo with his own proposals to improve the situation in Iraq. That memo provides the ‘cya’ effect as well as pre-empting Baker-Hamilton its originality. Not to be left out the master in-fighter Rumsfeld on his way out, prepares his own memo outlining his solutions and leaks it. So we have David Sanger and Michael Gordon of NY Times having a blast, counting how many cabinet officials leaked to them that day. Finally just to play down the expectations of those who think Baker-Hamilton is going to come up with the panacea for Iraq and a landing place to make policy corrections for this administration, the national security adviser damps them down by saying that the commission report would be **only one** of the many inputs Bush would be considering!