Congress again cedes power to president

 

Congress again cedes power to president

The case for sunset law

 

Gordon L. Weil

Congress is routinely criticized for its inaction, weakness, and failure to perform its constitutional duties.  Two recent cases prove the point.

Upon his return from one of his regular visits to Ukraine, Lindsay Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, suddenly died.  President Zelenskyy lost one his most staunch American supporters, a leader in opposition to Russia’s war against his country.  Graham was also an ally of President Trump.

With strong GOP majority support, both houses of Congress promptly passed a bill to impose tight controls on the oil sales that Russia was using to finance its war.  The bill was named in Graham’s honor and was signed by Trump, meaning the law would go into effect almost immediately.

Concerned about the effect of rising oil prices on Republican chances in the midterm elections and continuing to be enthralled by Putin’s autocratic control of Russia, Trump used a waiver in the Lindsay O. Graham Act to suspend limits it imposed.  This action accompanied his decision to allow American diesel purchases directly from Russia.

In effect, the law was just for show and Congress had done nothing, missing the opportunity to take real action on the Ukraine war, using the situation created by Graham’s unexpected death.  In effect, it committed legislative suicide.

Under the act, the president may waive any sanction on Russia by simply filing a report with Congress explaining the justification for the waiver. No further action is required, and the waiver has no time limit.

Presidential termination of any sanction requires congressional review and risks rejection, subject to the need to overcome a presidential veto.  Termination could be irrelevant if a president’s waiver continued endlessly.  Congress again recovered none of the powers it has ceded to the president over decades, retreating from its leadership role under the Constitution.

The result, as shown by Trump’s action, is that the bill is meaningless.  And so is Congress.  It is reasonable to wonder if any member ever read the bill through to the end or if they concurred in an act that they knew was an empty gesture.  If they had thought it could be politically useful to have voted for it, Trump deprived them of that small benefit.

In the second case, Trump took advantage of congressional inaction.

In 1930, Congress passed the highly protectionist Smoot-Hawley tariff.  History has assigned it a role as one of the major contributors to the Great Depression that devastated the economy of the 1930s.  

The act was so extreme that some of the authority given to the president had not been used during any of the next 16 presidencies.  An obvious failure, it went unused, but Congress failed to repeal it.

Believing that the American trade deficit is evidence of extensive exploitation by other countries, Trump launched high tariffs against most other countries.  He targeted Canada, which, unlike other countries, responded by raising its own tariffs.  Two-way retaliation emerged, but Trump believed that Canada favored other countries, which had not lifted their tariffs.

Section 338 of Smoot-Hawley gives the president power to retaliate against other countries if they discriminate against American exports, and he used it to impose 50 percent duties on Canada.  This law escapes most of the limits that allowed the Supreme Court to strike down his broader effort to raise tariffs.  Its use has created real hostility between Canada and the U.S.

These two cases reveal defects in the relationship between the president and Congress.  Limiting itself to general policy and glossing over key administrative details, Congress gives the president wide powers in carrying out its intent.  The president’s power is so unrestrained, that the chief executive may counteract the very intent of the legislation.

The Supreme Court has found that the president has almost unlimited power.  The only checks on his discretion are impeachment and conviction or elections.  Once granted a power, the president can distort or ignore its limits.  Only the Court can determine if the president violated the law, but it sees almost all presidential actions as protected by executive authority.

These cases offer two messages about congressional authority over presidents.

First, all legislation giving any authority to the president should be subject to sunset. After a limited period of time, the grant of executive powers would automatically terminate unless renewed for a similar period by subsequent votes.  It would be worth exploring if Congress could now enact a sunset rule applying to all current laws.

Second, a bipartisan body should be formed to identify laws that are duplicative, unused or in need of updating. Congress could then be required to take action on them.

If Congress continues giving presidents unlimited authority on the assumption that an elected leader will follow democratic norms, it will continue to see its power eroded.  It has options; it should use them.

 

 

New cold war under way, brings maritime arms race

 

New cold war under way

Maritime arms race

Gordon L. Weil

 

There’s a new cold war, and it’s bringing a new arms race.

This cold war is more than a figure of speech; it is taking place in the Arctic Sea.  Who will control an international waterway that has become an increasingly practical route for warships and freighters, owing to the effects of global warming?

President Trump’s attempted grab of Greenland focused on controlling the Arctic as a race with Russia and China, ignoring China’s lack of direct access.  In this race, the American maritime presence lags far behind Russia, the country with the most Arctic coast line.

While the U.S. cooperates with NATO allies having Arctic interests, it appears increasingly to prefer going it alone.  It now ignores its most logical partner; Canada has the second longest Arctic shore and maritime presence.  It’s a natural for cooperation with the U.S., but that possibility seems to have been cast adrift by trade wars.

The arms race takes the form of the national armadas of icebreakers.  Global warming has made the Arctic Sea more accessible for oceanic trade, especially as an alternative to Middle East choke points, endangered by the Iran war.  But if, when and how to transit the Arctic is usually an open question, with routes having to be kept open by icebreakers.

Icebreakers can also yield access to shorelines, allowing the extension of marine and military threats to areas that are difficult to defend.  Even offshore, they can access areas, claimed but undefended by one nation, to exploitation of natural resources or stationing of warships by another nation.

Right now, Russia’s icebreaker lead is large.  Its fleet reportedly includes more than 57 icebreakers and ice capable patrol vessels, including the only nuclear-powered icebreakers.   More are being built.  The two Chinese vessels could supplement its fleet.

Canada has about 18 such vessels and is the main force in the NATO fleet.  With Finland (10), Denmark (7), the U.S. (5), Sweden (5), and Norway (2), NATO’s hypothetical 47 does not equal Russia and China.  Some Nordic vessels may focus mostly on local port access.  NATO members, especially the U.S., have been slow in understanding the Russian challenge.

Canada has made broad claims to sovereignty over large areas of the Arctic Sea.  It immediately began work on two new ships, one mostly built in Finland, to protect its role.

Lacking the necessary shipbuilding capacity, the U.S. initially turned to Finland and Canada for joint construction.  In 2024, the three nations, having a common adversary, announced the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE) to build a huge fleet of icebreakers.

Under Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada, in addition to the two new icebreakers, it has ordered six more to be built in Quebec.  Noting that the U.S. now has only one operating icebreaker, he has offered to build vessels for the U.S.  But the U.S. arms race may be more with Canada than Russia.

The U.S. does not fully accept Canadian claims and seeks a dominant maritime regime.  The Trump Administration misconstrues the Monroe Doctrine to mean that the Western Hemisphere must be dominated by the U.S.  That would include Canada’s claimed Arctic waters.  The U.S. has launched its own effort to build six icebreakers with Finnish help.

Meanwhile, Canada is increasingly aligning its defense procurement with Europe at a potential cost to the U.S.  It is obtaining submarines from a German-Norwegian group, and it may choose to buy Sweden’s SAAB Gripen fighters over American F-35s.  The Gripen may better suit Canada’s northern needs, be cheaper to operate and avoid U.S. operational controls.

The fighter purchase may be an unseen element of an ultimate U.S.-Canada trade agreement.  Talks may drag on, because Canada holds this bargaining chip.

Until now, a coordinated NATO Arctic policy has been slow to evolve.  In part, Trump’s Greenland gambit complicated matters, and he wants the U.S. to lead an arrangement in which its role is necessarily limited by geography and weaponry.  With Greenland potentially resolved, cooperation could grow.

A major problem for the U.S. may be its failure to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, which has been adopted by almost all other countries.  Though widely supported, its ratification has been blocked by enough Republican senators to deny it the needed two-thirds vote.  They claim it would infringe on U.S. sovereignty.

The Convention includes specific provisions relating to the Arctic Sea.  Though not a complete solution, its guidelines can be helpful.   But the U.S. has left the marine jurisdiction issues to others. 

The Arctic Sea is an example of the way that the U.S. is gradually ceding its leading world role.  American policy highlights the fallacy of treating an ally as an adversary, by transforming a normal trade imbalance with Canada into a cause for self-defeating hostility and an unnecessarily higher defense budget.

 

Trump focuses on Trump, not saving GOP Congress

Trump focuses on Trump, not saving GOP Congress

Could make quick deals

 

Gordon L. Weil

At the end of the movie “Men in Black,” the scene fades on an image of the universe the size of a marble. 

In fact, the universe is about 93 billion light-years across and expanding.  That would be some marble.

For President Trump, the world is his marble. He sees himself smart enough and powerful enough to play with his marble as he wishes. 

But what can be done by special effects in a movie is proving impossible in the world today.  Though many people have noticed, Trump ignores the limits of his power and the world closing in on him.

Last week, the President of Iran, in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, made a proposal that included completely and quickly opening the Strait of Hormuz in seven days.   Oil prices might decline and signal an end to the Iran war, aiding Trump Republicans in the midterm elections.   It would also help the faltering Iranian economy and ease worldwide inflation.

Trump could have said that the offer is a good start, but not enough.  A quick outcome could allow him to describe whatever deal as a victory, while yielding Iran an end to war and a chance to revive its economy.  Instead, Trump quickly rejected the proposal, threatened more attacks and ignored overwhelming American opposition to the war.

His response revealed, once again, that his book, “The Art of the Deal,” is fiction. He does not negotiate; he intimidates.  He does not bargain until the best possible deal is reached.  Instead, he lays out his best-case result and expects the other side to concede and give him what he wants.  He is slow to understand when the other side won’t surrender or even its motivations.

The U.S. will not end up with a deal as good as the one President Obama made, however incomplete it was.  Trump cannot admit an error much less accept an offer even if it would allow him to paper it over.

Canada is much the same story.  Trump let his mapmaking dream of Canada as the 51st state get in the way of recognizing that it already was a satellite.   If he had chosen to focus on negotiations treating the Canadian economy as a complement to the American, he probably could have satisfied most of his ambitions minus the Stars and Stripes over Ottawa.

But he has insisted on total submission on trade rather than a highly advantageous deal.  Canada reacted under a new style of national leadership, which is both independent and assertive.  Eventually, a deal will emerge, because each side needs the other.  But the result will be less favorable to the U.S. than where Trump started.  His policy is not popular in the U.S.

In the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump chose to back Russian aggression, because he believes that force decides international relations, for Russia as it does for his U.S.  In one of the worst displays of diplomatic arrogance, he berated Ukraine President Zelenskyy and told him held “no cards,” while Russia’s Putin had them all.  He came to understand he was wrong.

But he stopped helping Ukraine, partly because his focus shifted to Iran and partly because of his unexplained affinity for Putin.  His moves stimulated a more independent Europe, less likely to follow America’s political lead.   By dropping Ukraine, he ignores wide American sentiment that both admires its resistance and retains deep-seated opposition to Russia.

If Trump took mercy on Republicans struggling to hold onto their seats in Congress, he could turn the political tide by declaring that he had adopted a fast-track policy to negotiate agreements aimed at dealing immediately with these three unpopular conflicts.

For Iran, he could return to the June ceasefire agreement, which he had abandoned when observers reported that it was also a good deal for Iran.  Isn’t that a successful negotiation – when each side is satisfied or equally dissatisfied?

For Canada, he could offer cooperation, not outright destruction, relating to key Canadian industries – auto, steel, aluminum and lumber – in return for firm preference on energy, potash, uranium and, somewhat oddly, alcoholic beverages.  The deal would have to be subject to financial guarantees.

For Ukraine, he could keep his offer, made earlier this year and then withdrawn, to allow it to manufacture Patriot missiles under license.   That announcement would send a message to Putin that the U.S. was backing Ukraine for the long haul, underlining the futility of continuing a war that Russia cannot win.

None of these suggestions has a chance.   Trump seems to care little about the fate of the GOP congressional majority in the midterms or the cost of living.   His prime focus is on attempts to build concrete (literally) gilded memorials to himself in Washington.  

All else is just a marble to play with.

The president who threatens his own country

 

The president who threatens his own country

Trump at war with his opponents

 

Gordon L. Weil

People should be either sad, angry or worried.  Or all three.

Recent news reveals far more than mere political disagreement.  It’s normal in a democracy for people to disagree and to argue that they know better than the opposition.  It’s the new normal to turn opposition into hatred and disagreement into unyielding conflict, threatening the country.

In his speech to the Republican rally that was called a convention, President Trump engaged in fear-mongering, repeatedly claiming that a Democratic congressional victory would bring Communist control.  This is not acceptable political talk nor can it be dismissed as campaign rhetoric; some people take it seriously because he says so. 

Rally participants shouted out for the killing of Democratic Senate candidates.  Sen. Ted Cruz was speaking at the time, but wanted to give the impression he had not heard, though many others did.  To ensure continued control by Trump Republicans, anything goes.  If Trump’s view prevails, no political opposition to his authoritarian government could survive.

Trump divides.  Upon taking office, the Trump administration abruptly fired the head of the armed forces, a Black man, and the head of the Navy, a white woman.    The actions implied that they got their jobs because of favoritism, not their experience and ability.  Without evidence, such prejudicial judgments can be understood as legitimizing racism and sexism.

He rejects affirmative action, but goes further to remove from office people he sees as taking the place of the historical ruling class.  He tries to rewrite or deny history.   Slavery cannot be erased as part of that history, yet that’s now being attempted in museums and national parks.

Beyond the federal government avoiding efforts promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), he withholds government funding to force non-governmental institutions, from universities to law firms, to follow his line.  Critical scientific research, through which America has led the world, will be severely crippled.

The president uses the augmented powers given to him by the Supreme Court to use the federal government for personal enrichment and retribution against his critics.  The DOJ brings spurious legal actions against critics and opponents, while openly admitting that the evidence of their supposed crimes must be found only after charges are brought.  That’s not how justice works.

These moves may intimidate their subjects into submission or retreat.  They certainly constitute harassment, aimed at making life more difficult and costly for his critics.  He never uses these tactics against supporters and, in fact, pardoned people who attacked the Capitol police in 2021.

He sues the news media and seeks regulatory penalties for those who simply question him.  Freedom of speech is a one-way street for his administration.  If successful, he could control or eliminate expressions of opposition to his actions.

He has terrorized his own political party and converted it into his personal property.  Anxious to hold onto their seats in Congress, Republicans temporize or keep quiet.  They follow him, because they’re scared of him.  The GOP, historically against more federal debt, now gives him all that he wants.  Their interest in survival exceeds their obligation to public service.

The Trump administration operates on the principle that the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, militarily and economically, and can force others to do what it demands.  Tariffs and warships, not diplomacy, are the prime instruments of foreign policy.  Adding insult to injury by making wild claims against other countries is part of this policy.

He reduced military support for South Korea, an essential ally in restraining China’s ambitions, because it does not support his Iran war.  He openly disdains Europe, demanding its support without consulting it.  He covets Greenland.  He turns Israel, long supported by both parties, into a partisan issue.   All this is personal politics, not leadership.

Canada has long been a willing dependent of the U.S.  Trying to achieve its complete subservience to the U.S., Trump levied high tariffs and launched aggressive and extravagant insults.  In Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, he found a rare opponent who would not be intimidated and who knows that Trump’s America is forfeiting its global standing.

The world’s problem is not Donald Trump.  It’s that the American people elected him a second time after experiencing his first term.  It’s not that you cannot trust Trump; it’s that you cannot trust America.  Turning away from America is a painful but inevitable process.

The elections this year are a referendum on Trump.  If Trump Republicanism survives, then more of the same can be expected.  Increasingly, average people may see Trump policies threatening their standard of living, their rights and their opportunity.

The question is not about whether the divided Democrats can get out of their own way.  It is whether the American people pay enough attention to look out for their own good.

Disagree?  Please comment.

Shooting attempt creates new, but futile, gun control demands

 

Shooting attempt creates new, but futile, gun control demands

Should focus on uses, not ownership

 

Gordon L. Weil

Each time the U.S. undergoes a mass shooting or an attack on an elected official, calls are immediately raised for additional gun control.  Usually, those calls go unanswered.

The frequent reply is that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  States may pass so-called red or yellow flag laws, allowing for temporarily taking firearms away from individuals with possible mental health problems.  Their effect is limited.

At the same time, gun sales may increase as the industry reacts by raising fears of possible government restrictions on gun ownership, though the manufacturers and the NRA succeed in blocking any such proposals.

It’s true that, by themselves, guns don’t kill people.  Does their ready availability make them the obvious tool of choice for people in responding to politics, personal disputes, or despair?   Is gun use a routine part of the national culture?

Most attacks on political figures are by zealots, driven so deeply into opposition that they seek to make a public statement or eliminate the person they hold responsible.  The shooter at last week’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner had an avowed grievance with President Trump and his administration.

Political shootings are a long-standing America tradition (three presidential assassinations between 1865 and 1901 plus two more attempts by 1933).  They continue, reflecting the deep divide in the country’s political life.  No longer does one party respect the patriotism of the other party, while opposing its policies.  The opposition has become a disloyal enemy. 

Trump has said he “hates” the Democrats, which he has labeled as “the enemy within.”  In full fury, he has called the Democratic Party as “the Party of Hate, Evil and Satan.”  That’s the language of war, not the language of open political communication.  It may last so long as MAGA Republicanism dominates politics, and Democrats respond to it.

While armed attacks on public officials of both parties and mass shootings, often at schools, raise legitimate outrage at gun violence, they miss a central fact about guns.  More than 60 percent of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides.  Their deaths are as much a sign of a troubled health care system with its questionable focus on mental problems as of a failure to control guns.

Guns are widely available and easy to use, making them a ready method to express anger or eliminate personal woes.  The U.S. leads the world with 121 firearms per 100 inhabitants.  Canada comes in second with 35 per 100.  In last place among leading nations is Japan with less than one gun per 100 people.

How does that translate into firearms deaths? The U.S. is second to gang-ridden Brazil and has 11 deaths per 100,000 population.  Canada has two and Japan has less then one per 100,000.

The differing death rates may reflect gun control.  Rules are extremely tough in Japan.  Canada licenses owners and requires registration, but little is done in the U.S. and Brazil.  While most countries have “stand your ground” laws, many impose a burden of proof on shooters and the need for proportionality, unlike many American states.

American history may help explain the clear difference between the U.S. and other countries.  The nation once depended heavily on state militias, military units composed of average people trained and on-call in an emergency.  Citizens kept their rifles at home, ready for a militia call-out.

Unlike older nations, the U.S. had a huge frontier.  With little government, if any, the pioneers were responsible for enforcing laws and local practices in the West.  The frontier disappeared but not the frontier mentality.  People have stuck with their sense of independence, especially as the government became more entwined with their lives. 

Many people strongly adhere to a tradition embodied in the Second Amendment, adopted in 1791.  Powerful and well-funded political forces protect a narrow interpretation of that amendment against gun reform.

Limiting the use of firearms has become a partisan issue.  The Republicans adopt wedge issues on which voters focus and vote, while ignoring the rest of the GOP agenda.  Gun control, drawing on national tradition, works well as a wedge issue.  

Shootings are likely to continue, and gun control laws could pass only after greater, sustained, and widespread outrage.  The government won’t be authorized to seize personal firearms, and widespread gun ownership makes some effective control almost impossible.

Future policy will continue to grapple unsatisfactorily with firearms.   Unnecessary deaths will continue.  The focus needs to be more on gun use than on limiting gun ownership.

Militias are gone, so a major justification for keeping guns at home could be replaced by financial incentives providing for safe, offsite storage at ranges and shooting galleries.

Mandatory registration does not mean confiscation, as Canada shows, and despite gun industry claims. It makes sense for law enforcement.  Plus, politicians should disarm their irresponsibly heated rhetoric.

 

Carney's historic challenge to resist great powers

 

Gordon L. Weil

Does Donald Trump seek to install authoritarian rule or is he merely using the government as his personal property?

The man who has everything may regard the presidency as his opportunity to display what he considers to be his superiority.  Or he may adhere to a philosophy that the time has come to displace inefficient democracy with more central command.

Either way, the result is the same.

He goes unchecked by a Republican Congress, Supreme Court and by governments abroad that believe that appeasing him is a workable foreign policy.   He succeeds so long as his party and the world accede to his demands.

The November elections will tell Americans if the occupation of Minneapolis is the wave of the future and if voting itself can be restricted to ensure authoritarian power.  Voting will be much more than making congressional choices.  If Trump wins, he can provide more of the same.  If he is repudiated, he can be expected to claim the elections were fixed.

The polls report his falling popularity, attributed to a sense of chaos and failure to keep his MAGA promises.  In every policy area, only a minority approves what he has done.  But the GOP overwhelmingly backs him.  This backing is evidence of his having taken over the party, able to brand traditional members as Republicans in Name Only.

The pundits focus in the upcoming elections mainly on swing districts, seats that may be captured as the result of gerrymandering and key Senate races.  His false assertions and distorted historical memory may cost him, but perhaps the voters will forgive much if he continues to slash the government.  Later the experts will decide if the results were a referendum on Trump. 

In international relations, the referendum on Trump seems already to be underway.  If Ukraine must accept a costly peace, it will largely be the result of the withdrawal of U.S. backing, reflecting Trump’s admiration of Putin.  He will also have crossed a worldwide redline in threatening to annex Greenland.

He compounded his decline by his statement that NATO allies, who supported the U.S. in Afghanistan after 9/11, stayed off the front lines.  That is simply false, and it has enraged America’s closest friends.  But he might say, “they need us; we don’t need them.”  That could prove to be a short-term view.

One advantage that he enjoys in the U.S. is the absence of an appealing and comprehensive competing view.  Not only are the Democrats self-indulgently divided, but they leave the role as their spokesperson to Sen. Chuck Schumer, clearly not up to the job.  They offer little more than opposition to Trump.  What is their alternative?

The world situation changed last week in a single speech at the Davos economic festival.  One person made one statement, a kind of Declaration of Independence, that both made him the star of the assembly and crystalized the alternative to succumbing to Trump, Putin and Xi.  This kind of statement is precisely what is lacking in American domestic policy.

This speech was delivered by Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada.  It is a policy statement about how Canada is responding to Trump (not mentioned by name) and an invitation for other countries to join.   It prescribed the need for “middle” powers to unify and diversify away from dependence on the U.S.

Carney’s speech demonstrated a quality sadly otherwise missing in the world – leadership.

Here I share with readers the full text of the speech.  At the end, I have provided a link to a report that includes the 16-minute video of Carney delivering it.  If you can take the time, I recommend that you read or watch it.

 

The Carney speech (it began in French):

 

I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power, geopolitics, is submitted to no limits, no constraints.

On the other hand, I would like to tell you that the other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states.

The power of the less power starts with honesty.

It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.

And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.

Well, it won't.

So, what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless, and in it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer.

Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: ‘Workers of the world unite’. He doesn't believe it, no-one does, but he places a sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persist – not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this “living within a lie”.

The system's power comes not from its truth, but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true, and its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack. Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied – the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat. And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy, in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.

And this impulse is understandable. A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself, has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

But let's be clear eyed about where this leads.

A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable. And there is another truth. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.

Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.

Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.

They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty can also be shared.

Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum. And the question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality – we must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Now Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.

Canadians know that our old comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security – that assumption is no longer valid. And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, has termed “value-based realism”.

Or, to put another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic – principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter, and respect for human rights, and pragmatic and recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.

So, we're engaging broadly, strategically with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.

We are calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values, and we're prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given and given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.

And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.

We are building that strength at home.

Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast tracking a trillion dollars of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We're doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we're doing so in ways that build our domestic industries.

And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months. The past few days, we've concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We're negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.

We're doing something else. To help solve global problems, we're pursuing variable geometry, in other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So, on Ukraine, we're a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.

On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark, and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future.

Our commitment to NATO's Article 5 is unwavering, so we're working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic Baltic Gate, to further secure the alliance's northern and western flanks, including through Canada's unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft and boots on the ground, boots on the ice.

Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.

On plurilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people. On critical minerals, we're forming buyers’ clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we're cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won't ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyper-scalers.

This is not naive multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work – issues by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together.

In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.

What it's doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture, on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

Argue, the middle powers must act together, because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

But I'd also say that great powers, great powers can afford for now to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not.

But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination. In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice – compete with each other for favour, or to combine to create a third path with impact.

We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong, if we choose to wield them together – which brings me back to Havel.

What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?

First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is – a system of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests, using economic integration as coercion.

It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction, but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion – that's building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government's immediate priority.

And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence, it's a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

So Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital, talent… we also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but.. A partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

And we have something else. We have a recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation.

The powerful have their power.

But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.

That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us. Thank you very much.

 

Link to report with video or copy this:  https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/2222202/read-mark-carneys-full-speech-on-middle-powers-navigating-a-rapidly-changing-world

 

 

 

 

 

Poltical myths of the year

 

Gordon L. Weil

With the yearend, my occasional search for political myths is overflowing.  Here are ten of the best.

1. Commerce Department reports unexpectedly strong economic growth. 

This report exceeds earlier results and independent economic forecasts.  The Commerce Department’s questionable objectivity could raise doubts about it.   Trump fired one of its top independent economists, because he disliked her analyses, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is totally loyal to his president.

2. Epstein papers are being released. 

Candidate Trump promised they’d be released, implying that the Democrats suppressed them to avoid embarrassment.  But he tried unsuccessfully to block their release, throwing suspicion on himself and on his campaign promise.  The release drags on.  Does it matter?  Probably not, as the absence of a political reaction to his “Access Hollywood” groping story showed.

3. Trump has launched a peace deal in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. 

The first phase of the deal successfully brought the release of prisoners and hostages.  But the neutral international force to be stationed in Gaza does not exist, and the conflict continues.  With Trump’s support, Israel retains control and won’t fully withdraw, and Hamas terrorists cling to power in Gaza.  Trump claims he brought peace; he didn’t even bring a ceasefire.

4. Trump might run for a third term. 

A third term is unconstitutional, but with this Supreme Court anything is possible.   Still, as Trump’s health has evolved, third-term chatter has virtually vanished.  Appearing to have abandoned his hope, he has even named possible successors – Vance and Rubio.

5. Canada should be the 51st state. 

He might have noticed it already was.   But he wanted more than dependence; he wanted historic American territorial expansion.   Mark Carney, the new Canadian Prime Minister, strongly opposed Trump’s tariffs, and Canada promptly began diversifying away from the U.S.  The expansionist policy backfired.

Statehood would require the approval of Congress and the unlikely agreement of most Canadians.  If it happened, the U.S. could gain each of the ten provinces as states, not huge Canada signing on as one state.  That was probably not Trump’s intent.

6. Greenland is part of North America and the Monroe Doctrine entitles the U.S. to it.

Tectonic plates make Greenland a part of North America, but the Monroe Doctrine does not apply.  Greenland was under the Danish crown before the Monroe Doctrine, which specifically exempts Western Hemisphere territories already under European control.   It was aimed at keeping Spain and Portugal from trying to retake their former colonies.

Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark, would agree to host increased U.S. military operations.  Without territorial concessions, upgraded defense could be achieved. Trump’s goal seems to be about territory, not defense, and he has alienated an ally. 

7. The president can deploy the National Guard to protect U.S. facilities in American cities.

Despite Trump’s deployments, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the National Guard can be used to protect federal facilities only when the regular military cannot.  It can’t replace local police.  That’s originalism, but it was opposed by the very justices usually favoring that concept.  Trump got the message and withdrew the troops in most places.

8. Child labor protection denies children their freedom.

Congress once planned a constitutional amendment on child labor.  Instead, it long ago enacted strong, protective legislation.  Facing labor shortages due to reduced immigration, some Republicans now want to loosen that protection.  Their logic? Since kids now stay up late playing video games, they should be free to work more hours.

9. The U.S. is committed to Taiwan’s independence from China.

While it intentionally waffles on China’s claim to Taiwan, the U.S. could thwart a Communist Chinese invasion of the island.  China menaces Taiwan and has been conducting nearby live-fire exercises in international waters, patrolled by the U.S. Navy to ensure freedom of the seas and to oppose China’s claims.

American policy is weakened by moving an entire aircraft carrier group from the South China Sea to the Caribbean, trying to force Venezuelan regime change.  The U.S. pushes an aggressive view of the Monroe Doctrine rather than resisting Chinese expansion affecting Taiwan, the Philippines and South Korea, all important allies.

10. The U.S. is the only power that can bring peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine to expand and extend its influence on the territory of the former Soviet Union.  Conflicting territorial claims and Ukraine’s insistence on protecting its sovereignty put a peace deal out of reach.  The U.S. could force a resolution by stronger backing for Ukraine or tougher retaliation against the Russian aggressor, as some Republicans advocate, or both.

By doing neither, Trump is unable to bring peace.  His solution is to force Ukraine to accept Russian demands, but his problem is that Europe feels threatened and supports Ukraine’s independence, pledging to back it indefinitely.  As a result, Trump cannot become the historic dealmaker, when a deal on Russian-U.S. terms is impossible.

A loyal reader found an editorial error in the last column.  The correct name with nickname of the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Gen. Dan “Raizin’ Caine”.

Trump's ego undermines his policies

 

Gordon L. Weil

Imagine a president who wanted to add to the national territory, sought to reform banking, and staged a bold fight on tariffs.  He won the presidency but without winning a popular majority.

Donald Trump?  This describes him well, though he has not yet succeeded on any of his goals.

But it isn’t Trump.  You may well have never heard of this president.  He was James K. Polk, the eleventh president.  Unlike Trump, he pledged to serve only one term, and he did.  Also, unlike Trump, he achieved all his goals. 

Most importantly, he served without displaying outsized ego or self-promotion, resulting in his historical anonymity.  But he changed the nation.  If you want to make America great again, Polk’s presidency is part of the past that Trump would restore.

Anyone who aspires today to the American presidency must have a big ego.  The task and the responsibility are so great that a person with a normal view of their limits would not have enough self-regard to carry them through a campaign much less the presidency.  But Trump’s view of himself surpasses any of his predecessors.

Trump’s ego is the hallmark of his administration.  He makes extravagant claims about his memory, his knowledge of science, his wealth, and his ability to use power effectively.  He sees his supposed success in real estate as proof of his extraordinary ability to make deals among nations.

He seeks to burnish his status by adding vast territory to the United States (Greenland, Canada, though the Panama Canal seems to have been dropped), and returning the banking system to the banks, and making the U.S. economically independent.  He would by himself turn the tide of American history.

With no embarrassment he has made clear that his political style relies rely on threats to his GOP friends and foreign allies, and depend heavily on flattery.  Foreign leaders quickly found that unbounded praise is an essential tool in inducing him to alter his policies.  They also never tire of admitting their dependence on the U.S. with the resulting need to stay on his good side.

Nowhere is this more obvious than his attempt to collect nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize from the leaders of other nations.  He may believe that a rush of high-level nominations will enhance his chances.  It looks like gaining endorsements for one’s candidacy during a political campaign. 

Trump appears to consider the praise and support he actively cultivates as a sign that others recognize his outstanding qualities and accomplishments.   His ego allows him to miss their obvious flattery, not representing their sincere beliefs, but as a necessary tool of their own foreign policies.  He is not widely regarded as the “very stable genius” that he claims to be.

Nominating him for the Peace Prize amounts to merely promising to write to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.  Nominations remain secret for 50 years.   Sinking small vessels on the high seas, threatening to use force against Venezuela and Nigeria or sending the military to repress domestic free speech will deny him the Prize, no matter what else he does.

The ultimate expression of his ego may have been slapping an added 10 percent tariff on Canadian imports, because he disliked a television ad.  Tariffs are taxes and are supposedly based on economic considerations not presidential whim.

Much of the world sees through his personal management of American policy.  The country is increasingly held responsible for having elected him twice.  Because such a choice may be possible in the future, many countries grow wary of a close, long-term relationship with the U.S. 

Trump uses the powers of his office, enhanced by the backing of the Supreme Court and the GOP Congress, to serve his ego more than the national interest.  This may reshape the U.S. and its effect can extend well into the future.  He may not achieve his goals, but he is making his mark.

And the anonymous Polk?  In the four years of his presidency, he almost doubled the size of the country through the controversial Mexican War and astute diplomacy with Great Britain.

He also created an independent national treasury, arguing the U.S. could manage its own financial affairs, not the banks.  This led eventually to the Federal Reserve, the public-private arrangement setting monetary policy that Trump would now topple.

And Polk changed national tariff policy.  He lowered tariffs so they would cover the cost of government but not overly protect domestic industry, thus reducing prices.  This policy worked for 20 years.

Trump’s excessive focus on himself – his ego gratification – gets in the way of stable and sound public policy, conservative or not.  It offends many whose support he needs.

Displaying little ego, Polk acted for what he saw as the public good.  A contrast with today.

Trump on trade: good idea, bad execution

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump got something right.  But he is handling it all wrong.  It’s about tariffs and trade.

He understood that world trade no longer obeyed the rules that grew up after World War II and that the U.S. suffered from its clinging to the past.  Single-handedly, he decided to end the old order.

After the war, a new trade system was created.  It was called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or simply GATT, and it fostered rounds of multinational trade negotiations.

The idea was that countries could gain improved access to foreign markets and to imports they needed and wanted.  Rather than benefiting from one-on-one deals with other countries, they could derive a net gain from a package of multinational deals.

The GATT system works reasonably well.  A so-called “rules based” system, it relied on all participants having the same commitment to the process and operating through market systems.  Dominated by the U.S. and Europe, it included countries that accounted for most world trade.

As other major players appeared, GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization.  It accepted emerging countries where the government might still control markets, but which were supposed to evolve into open market economies.

The biggest new participant was China, a supposedly emerging economy.  President Bill Clinton supported its membership in the belief that its WTO participation would move it to the market system.  But with other state-run economies, China began to distort the rules-based system. 

President Kennedy once said of trade that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”  While that might have been true of GATT, it became increasingly evident that some big boats ignored the rules of navigation.  The U.S. and Europe continued to act as if the old rules were still observed.  Trump saw they were outmoded, and the U.S. was becoming a net loser.

Because consumers favor low prices without regard to the reasons for it, the U.S. trade deficits deepened.  Not only did that transfer economic power to China and other low-wage countries, but it cost the U.S. jobs, especially in manufacturing, a loss only partially offset by the growth of the service economy.

Trump promptly stepped outside the structure of rules-based world trade and destroyed it.  A compliant Congress allowed him to set tariffs that it was supposed to control.  Whether he acted legally without congressional approval is now before the Supreme Court.

Instead of using U.S. power to leverage other countries to negotiate a new system, Trump immediately raised tariffs on virtually all other countries (except for Russia).   In one stroke, multilateral deal making in trade was replaced by America First.  Existing trade patterns were abruptly toppled.

Trump’s approach was not exactly the art of the deal.  He simply sharply raised tariffs and expected other countries to come to him with offers to accept more U.S. products and to increase their investment in the U.S.  If he liked the offers, he lowered their tariffs.  The situation became more like an auction than a negotiation.  Flattering Trump personally also helped deals.

Most countries complied.   They could get tariffs lowered, though they remained well above their pre-Trump levels, if they made offers to open their own markets and boost their investment in the U.S.  But friendly relations or even alliances are suffering.   

America has reduced both its trade deficit and its partnerships with others.  Reduced trade means prices are rising in the U.S. and elsewhere, slowing economic growth.  The rest of the world has begun developing new trade relationships to protect against arbitrary U.S. policies.   But that change will take time.

One country has refused to go along with bidding to induce Trump to lower tariffs.   Though Canada is dependent on the U.S., Prime Minister Mark Carney believes the U.S. relies on some of its key exports and must eventually negotiate a deal. 

Canadians understand their country’s dependence on the U.S. won’t disappear quickly, but it moves to diversify its trade on the way to long-term independence.  It is developing its domestic market, long oriented to the U.S., and draws closer to Europe.

Beyond trade differences, Trump has crossed a red line.  He repeatedly asserts that Canada should become the 51st state.  He ignores the direct effect of his remarks on future relations with it and as a signal for other countries to reduce their dependence on the U.S.

Last week, a new book entitled “Elbows Up” appeared in Canada.  It is anti-American. The term refers to a quasi-illegal jab given to an opposing player while battling for a hockey puck.  Launched by Carney, a former hockey goalie, it’s a motto that all Canadians understand.

The U.S.-Canada clash symbolizes the change Trump has caused. World trade will be reformed, as certainly was needed.   But, thanks to his methods, America’s leadership is beginning to wane.   

Trump shows his worry about Supreme Court tariff case

 

Gordon L. Weil

Unlike almost all other countries, Canada has refused to make concessions to President Trump that would induce him to lower tariffs.  While he has taken actions on policies not yet in effect or to match a U.S. concession, Prime Minister Mark Carney insists in negotiations.

But trade talks are making no progress.  Instead of wasting time courting Trump, Canada is working hard on finding alternate markets and on increasing domestic trade.  But it attempts to keep talks going in the hope that the U.S. will realize its dependence on its major trading partner and ally.

Then, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is deeply involved in the joint American-Canadian auto manufacturing arrangement, vented his frustration with the talks.  As a Canadian Conservative, he had liked Trump’s return to office.  But the president’s tariff policy almost immediately turned him around.

Ford launched a one-minute television ad featuring long-ago remarks against tariffs by then President Ronald Reagan.  Trump immediately blew, impulsively cancelling what seemed to be the almost mythical trade talks with Canada.  Then, he added a new 10 percent tariff.  Out of this ad and Trump’s visceral reaction came a flood of misdirection.

First, was Reagan for or against tariffs?   He was a free trader who had just raised tariffs on Japan in retaliation for its protectionism.  While making this protective move, he sought to maintain his reputation as a free trader.  The statements Ford used were not out of context with Reagan’s entire remarks, but they were out of context with the complete circumstances of the times.

Trump claimed that Reagan “loved” tariffs, which also took his remarks out of context.  The former president tried to make clear that he did not like tariffs and their effects, but sometimes increasing them was necessary.  He did not use them like Trump’s broad-brush approach.

Second, Ford’s ad opportunistically took advantage of the fleeting moment when Americans would pay much attention to Canada, thanks to the opening of the World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers.  It was an outburst of patriotic support for his province, home of the Blue Jays, and an outlet for his anger over Trump’s auto protectionism.

Third, Ford was seeking to put pressure on Carney.  They are not natural allies.  Besides, Ford’s Ontario has demands that differ somewhat from Carney’s Canada.   Canadian provinces often find themselves at odds with federal policy.  Ford could be seeking a deal that would benefit Ontario, but possibly at the expense of other provinces.

Carney obviously did not like Ford treading on his authority over foreign and trade policy.  He got Ford to withdraw the ad, but only after the first two games, both played in Toronto.  Ford wanted to keep exploiting the inevitable explosion of Canadian nationalism at the games, but he does not speak for Canada.  Carney showed Trump that he had no responsibility for the ad.

Fourth, Trump’s instant reaction scarcely hides the reluctance of the U.S. to arrive at a negotiated deal with Canada rather than simply forcing it to make concessions.  Trump apparently believes that delay weakens Canada and improves his own position.   He ignores the deep anger north of the border about his suggestion that Canada should become the 51st American state.

Fifth, perhaps the most important aspect of the ad flare-up is that it revealed what is truly worrying Trump – the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling unravelling most of his tariff policy.  Two federal courts have already ruled that most Trump tariffs are not allowed.  The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Congress permits the president to alter tariffs in a national emergency, but his current declaration does not meet the standard set by Congress in giving the president its power to set tariffs.  His complete control over tariffs would be unconstitutional.  And, it is hardly a national emergency when tariff talks with Canada are ostensibly ended because of a critical television ad.

Trump charges that Ontario’s Ford is trying to influence the Court’s decision.  But Ford only wants a trade deal on autos.   And it’s an insult to the Court that it, like Trump, would be influenced by a Canadian television ad.

Trump’s reaction could go beyond trade policy and increase his worries.  If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the lower court specializing in trade matters, it would be the first serious limit it has imposed on his powers.  If it supports him, the ruling would cement its backing for his virtually absolute power.

He believes that court actions can be influenced by his political pressure.  Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, led by judges he has appointed, have favored him.  By creating an improbable pretext for Ford’s ad, he may want to be seen as a victim, worthy of more judicial deference.