What’s the Deal With “Going Postal” on the Post Office?

Note: This Post Has Been Updated as of 5/7/2012

Hello All!

You don’t work in the rain? You’re a mailman! Neither rain, nor sleet, nor… – its the first one!!!

Welcome to another edition of          ”What’s the Deal?,” the blog that keeps going no matter rain, nor sleet, nor snow, nor (fill in precipitation noun).

Disclaimer: There will be an inordinate amount of Seinfeld references/jokes in this week’s blog (much more than the usual 3-4).

In this week’s blog, we’ll discuss the recent legislation concerning the U.S. Postal Service and the apparent “inevitability” of the government service’s demise.  We’ll also take a look at the history of the postal service and look at similar government services from around the world so we can answer the questions:  Do we need this service? And if we do, how do we  keep it?

Why? I’ll tell ya why! Because the mail never stops

In this recent political climate of needing to fight and scrape for every federal dollar, it is surprising that the United States Postal Service (USPS) has been spared huge cuts (so far). For many years we have heard much speculation about the future of the service: debates over its necessity, arguments that the service was defunct, that the service was inefficient, slow to adapt, and that its employees were all mentally unstable (For the record, postal workers are less at risk of being killed on the job than the average U.S. worker).

The Current

The Postmaster General, Patrick Donahue, has given Congress until May 15th to make a decision/plan to get the USPS’s finances straight, or he will begin cutting hundreds of postal facilities.  So in this week’s Senate Bill, health benefit payments were restructured, retirement benefit prepayments were lowered, more revenue sources were explored (like delivering alcohol), spending provisions for conferences were limited, and Saturday delivery was not cut (but provisions for cutting Saturday service were explored).  The aim of the Senate bill was to be less harsh on the USPS and focused on not having to close offices or services.

Donahue: “In addition to being a Postmaster, I’m also a General”

The bill goes to the House, where lawmakers have a different way of addressing the Post Office in their bill.  The House bill establishes a separate committee, the Commission on Postal Reorganization (CPR), designed to implement savings from USPS through closing of offices, consolidation of activities, but with harsher restrictions, such as prohibiting appeal of an office closure and a not allowing a judicial review.

the House Bill administers CPR on the post office

Both measures of legislation are directed at overcoming the large budget deficit that the USPS has accumulated over the last 2 decades.  There are several arguments in response to the Congressional activism that show that the USPS is actually a very profitable company if certain burdenesome regulations were lifted and if the recession hadn’t slowed down business services.

More Like the USDS (United States Deficit Service)

The Post Office still handles 500 Million pieces of mail every day, 6 days a week, to 150 Million addresses.  It is without a doubt, still a successful business that handles an incredible workload.   How did the Postal Service come to face such threats as closure and serious restructuring?

First is the fairly obvious reality that an old-school paper/parcel delivery service faces: In a world where most communication has gone digital, there is a decreased market for their service.  This is the same reality that print newspapers and magazines have had to confront.  As Sen. John McCain called it, “a dying part of the American economy.”

Second, the Great Recession has reduced the amount of business the USPS handles.  This may not be the primary driver of reduced revenue, but it absolutely should be recognized as a significant factor in addressing its finances.

Email: the silent killer

Third, is the employee/collective bargaining situation.  Employee benefits and poor financial management have contributed to problems controlling costs.  Some examples of Postal employee benefits are:

• Annual Leave (15+ yrs of service = 26 paid days off/yr)
• Sick Leave (Ft employees can accrue 13 days/yr with no limits)
• Retirement (Federal Employee Retirement system): Postal agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions,  postal agency pays its part too.  Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life. A postal worker’s own contributions are also tax-defferable.
• Health Insurance (Excellent coverage that is covered mostly by the Post Office)
• Flexible Spending Accounts (cash assistance to help purchase medication, etc.)
• Life Insurance (Basic coverage is covered fully by the Postal Service)

These benefits along with a competitive compensation and job security are often cited as major reasons why the Post Office has been borrowing to perform basic operations.    There is some merit to this, as the USPS employs nearly 700,000 people (546,000 career employees).  With such a large workforce and playing the pivotal role in the global mailing industry, the Post Office also has a large and powerful organized labor group to protect these employees and their benefits.  The forced pre-payment of retirement benefits from Congressional Legislation plays an alarming role in the financial burden on the USPS.

Will strike for benefits

Fourth, and most importantly, the Post Office’s organizational structure as a government entity operating as a business, may be the largest contributor to its stagnancy in revenue, which is why the aforementioned legislation seeks to address it.  Reorganization of the USPS and strict government regulations have made it difficult for the Post Office to remain profitable.

To see how the Post Office has reached this point, we’ll take a quick look at the history of the service and perhaps gain a grasp of the situation and maybe even a few answers for our previous questions.

Of course, I used my “you know I used to be a General” line to pick up all the French women

From Ol’ Ben to a 24/7 Post Office

Importantly, the postal service had existed for decades in America before Benjamin Franklin became the first postmaster general.  From 1673, formal mail service had been conducted; first between colonies, and then eventually centralized by the British government in 1707.  Franklin was even appointed Postmaster General for the colonies between 1753 and 1775 (unsurprisingly, he was dismissed for actions sympathetic to colonial independence).

Once the Postal Service was intercolonial, it was funded by subscription and revenue was put back into improving service (a practice continued today).  Ironically, the Crown’s service provided key communication lines that spurred and influenced revolutionary activity (funny how communication plays a role in revolutions).  The 2nd Continental Congress (after the battles of Lexington and Concord) created a colonial postal service that would become the USPS with Ben Franklin as the first postmaster general from 1775 – 76 (he already had that on his resume).  The Articles of Confederation established and regulated post offices and exacted postage on the service to pay for it (the A of C was unable to tax anything else).  The U.S. Constitution continued the Post Office (article I sec. 8) and the Act of May 8, 1794 extended the Postal Service indefinitely.

Not be upstaged

As the overall territory in the United States grew, the Postal Service played a large role in the development of new settlements.  From the Louisiana Purchase, to the gains of the Mexican War, the United States expanded its territory from sea to sea, and needed communication routes to connect people, government, and commerce.  The Postal Service filled this role brilliantly, but it often came with difficult financing options:

As the country grew, people in new states and territories petitioned Congress for even more post routes, regardless of their cost or profitability. The Post Office Department, and thus the federal government, had to decide whether to subsidize routes that promoted settlement but did not generate enough revenue to pay for themselves or to operate in the black. The Department struggled with this issue. With congressional support and keeping fiscal responsibility firmly in mind, the Department ultimately made decisions in the 19th century that reflected public service as its highest aim. It funded post routes that supported national development and instituted services to benefit all residents of the country.

These decisions changed pricing of postage to depend on weight, and not on distance.  The first postage stamps were issued in 1847 and worked to fund the service, “They… have made a new and remunerative business for the Department.” This was vital in ensuring that mail could reach any corner of the country.  With the country’s geographic expansion came the problem of transportation.  The Post Office, however, was able to cut its transportation costs by 17% while its route distances rose by 20%!  It was able to do this by awarding contracts to the lowest bidder who could provide the “due celerity, certainty, and security of such transportation.”  These contractors used stagecoach, horseback, steamboat, and rail (as they became available) to transport the mail.  Interestingly, in the 19th Century, the Postmaster General ordered to keep Sunday delivery service since eliminating service on the Sabbath would delay the mail too much.

Free, Free, Free, Free, Free!!!

The initiation of free city and rural delivery (city first) connected letter carriers to individual addresses instead of just post offices.  This worked to connect urban and rural America (which was mostly rural at the start of the 20th Cent.), but having an increased number of letter carriers, the Post Office reduced the number of post offices in service to save money.

Looking towards new business services, the Post Office petitioned to begin delivering heavier packages in 1904 which paved the way for general parcel service.  The Parcel Post service was enacted in 1912 and was an immediate success (in part because of the expanse of catalog-home sales like Sears, Roebuck Co.).  With very low rates, the Postal Service was actually able to out compete private parcel express carriers, forcing the hand of Congress to bail out one company, the Railway Express Agency and limit the package size of the Parcel Post, thereby limiting their business success.

The Post Office responded to a previous communications change in the middle of the 20th Century with a vast reorganization and a new coding system (ZIP codes). Communications through the mail changed from vastly social to business, rising to 80% business mail in 1963.  Business mail involved credit card transactions, bills, magazines, advertising, bank deposits, and Social Security checks.  To account for this massive inflow of material and offset growing costs, the Post Office began a new sorting system that assigned specific locations with their own code, the ZIP (zoning improvement plan) code.  This involved integrating new mechanized sorting techniques to increase efficiency.

I’ll let you in on a little secret about ZIP codes….. they’re meaningless ahahaha!

Efficiency rose through automation til the peak of Post Office use in 2006 where the USPS delivered 32% more mail with 9% fewer employees than 1988.  Finally, the Post Office became an online service in 2002 when it launched its “Click-and-Ship” service.  Since then, usps.com has been a way for customers to do business outside of the 9-5 hours of the physical post office, a much needed change for USPS to operate in a 24/7, connected world.

So clearly, the Post Office has had several obstacles in funding, technology, and competition to overcome.  In several instances, the Post Office has been able to be:

• Innovative to improve their service
• Focused on improving service and communication in a sustainable manner
• A major player in facilitating the growth of the U.S. and in pioneering new technologies (one of the first to test out airplane delivery service)

Much of the recent financial troubles of the Post Office can be attributed to it’s unique but difficult position of having to operate as a business (ie. balance its books w/o taxpayer $), yet operate under the constraints of being a governmental organization.

We saw this exemplified in the 1950s when Congress restrained the Postal Service’s competitive edge in parcel delivery.  More recently, Congress has intervened in the Postal Service’s secure hold on online bill paying in 2000 (from objection of the internet industry) and Congressional insistence that USPS not compete directly with UPS and FedEx, even when these delivery giants had encroached on USPS’s territory.  (Note: I am not necessarily against Congress doing this since USPS is still a pseudo-Governmental entity, and allowing the USPS to have monopolies on these services would reduce free market competition).

US Post Office Reorganization 

A few key pieces of legislation have given the Post Office its present organization; a set up that is seen as part of the financial problem.

With a Board of Directors, the USPS has been getting used to the Roundtable

The Post Office Reorganization Act of 1970 transformed the Post Office Department into the United States Postal Service as an independent establishment of the Executive Branch.  While the mission of the Service remained the same, the authority no longer lied with Congress but with the USPS Board of Governors (a kind of Board of Directors) and a Post Office Exec. Management.  The USPS could also issue bonds to fund services, direct collective bargaining between management and unions, and set rates via a new postal commission.  These changes were intended to make sure that the USPS actually had some measure of control of their workload, pricing, transportation and facilities.

Importantly, the Reorganization Act gave more power to unionized workers, as the terms and limits of employment were done through collective bargaining.  Compensation would remain on pace with the private sector and retirement benefits would continue to be in line with Civil Service benefits.  The creation of the Office of the Inspector General made sure that there were continuous efforts looking for savings and areas for improved efficiency.

The Postal Act of 2006 significantly changed the way USPS was organized: It also initiated the Postal Regulatory Commission, a Congressional watchdog that submits reports to Congress and the President on how the Post Office is progressing in modernizing its business to accommodate the 2006 Act (a network plan).  Keep in mind, 2006 was the year the amount of mail/packages/services peaked for USPS, yet this legislation was implemented in view of falling mail usage and rising costs.  The network plans aimed to increase accountability, improve efficiency standards, and explore alternative revenue streams.  In addition, this legislation implemented the pre-payment of retirement benefits for Postal employees.  So basically, the ’06 Act tried to create measures to hold the Post Office accountable for not meeting revenue and service standards.

So that leads us to the legislative overhaul/reduction plans of the present, where we have yet to solve a seemingly unshakeable issue of running a successful business under the watchful and sometimes burdensome Government hand.

But USPS is not the only Government run postal service that has been in trouble….

What Have Other Countries Done?

Not enough funding to be a double decker mail van

In Great Britain, Royal Mail is, like the USPS, a state owned company.  Interestingly, its ownership is scheduled to change in the near future.  The Postal Services Act of 2011 enabled the Government to privatize Royal Mail up to 90% of shares, with the remaining 10% owned by Postal employees.  These shares are expected to be issued in 2013- 2014.  So, Great Britain is seeking a wholly business approach to the Postal Service and to lose much of the constraints of operating as a government institution.

La Poste is about to go private

Across the Channel, France has a similar situation with its state owned Postal Service (La Poste) in that it is planning on privatization in accordance with the EU in the near future (though this has been postponed because of the financial crisis).  In addition, La Poste is a full fledged bank offering loans and savings accounts.  Further commercial activity with a broader range of activities is also planned.

Down Under, the Australian Post has a similar set up, as a state owned corporation, but is actually operating in the black.  The Aussies have found a way to do this by increasing the capacity of the business to expand into other ventures while keeping the mandatory letter-carrying service of delivering across the country @ the same rate.  Australian Post recognized that the real killer is not email and losing personal social communication (only 5% of Aussie Post service) but in fact was the threat of losing business operations.  The Australian government has allowed AuPo to compete in air courier service and financial agency services (among other flexible provisions).

AusPo: Upgrading to save money

Do these examples provide any insight to the troubles of the USPS?

Conclusion

From all angles, the organization of the Post Office’s is unsustainable, and a need for cutbacks (gradual or small) or large organizational change seems inescapable.  But, most Americans and Congress, believe that the Post Office should remain, as is written in the Constitution, a part of government (though semi-autonomous).   There are some proponents of privatizing the Post Office, like our European friends are planning to do, but they are the minority.  The argument now is over how harshly to cut back on the USPS.

Of course no one needs mail… you think you’re so smart figuring that out??

But I think we can use some key points from our Postal Service’s history as well as some pragmatic logic to come up with some answers to our questions from the intro:

1. Q: Do we need this service?           A:  I most undoubtedly think we do.  Though its financing may be a wreck because of its status and the recession, the USPS is still by far the most important mail and parcel delivery entity in the world.  It certainly still handles a huge amount of mail in the U.S. (167.9 Billion pieces of mail processed in 2011) that we cannot consider this service defunct.  Further, as many have argued, Post Offices remain a central component to rural and small communities across the country.  Without reliable fiber-optic networks in range (yet), Post Offices remain a vital communications line from rural to more populous areas.
2. Q: How do we keep it?   A:  This is of course, the central argument being “debated” in Congress. 

• First, I would look to specific instances in which the Postal Service has been successful, such as pursuing new technologies and new avenues in commercial activity.  These ideas though, are dependent on the Fed being able to loosen the reins around USPS’s range into the free market.  Some reform has come, such as the Postal Reorg. Act in 1970, but a chance to gain greater access to markets (without tipping the balance) would surely loosen the purse strings.  We could of course look to privitization, like the Brits and the Euro Zone, but I think that would make the USPS a competitive loser.  Though its quasi-government, part-business status can constrain USPS, it also is uniquely helpful.  USPS has the backings of the Fed, and can use these to its advantage such as pursuing new technologies faster and integrating them more quickly (while having a financial backfall).    

• Second, either the Postal Employee’s Union, or the USPS Board of Governors will have to blink on benefits.  If the alternative is closure of offices or service days, than perhaps the staring match will come to an end sooner than we think.  If Postal Employees want to remain competitively paid with (arguably) very good benefits, then the Union as a whole will have to come to terms with fewer members.  Conversely, the Board of Governors and Exec Management should stop hiring so many part-time and non-career employees.  This short term savings is creating rifts with the Union, who are growing ever more steadfast in keeping their reducing membership with benefits.

• Third, the USPS will have to transform itself if it is to avoid John McCain’s prediction of a “dying part of the American economy”.  As mentioned in the first bullet, the organization of the USPS has much to do with its ability to transform its services to new technology and communications, and the Post Office must be willing to adapt or add new services, which the Post Office has a proven record of doing.

Well, there is of course plenty more to discuss on this topic, but I think this lays some of the brushstrokes on the political canvas (I tried to be non-partisan!)

Until next time, here’s one more Seinfeld/mail reference to send you off:

“I tried my best!” …. “Exactly, you’re a disgrace to the uniform”

Your Faithful Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources and Further Reads:

http://potifos.com/postal.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/politics/senate-passes-bill-to-overhaul-postal-service.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2309

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/25/151362826/senate-debates-plan-to-keep-post-offices-running

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/postal_service/index.html

Postal Employee Network

http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp

http://savethepostoffice.com

the History of the United States Postal Service, An American History

http://about.usps.com/publications/pub100/

Postal Services Bill 2010-11″. Parliament UK

“Royal Mail to deliver IPO in 2013″. Finiancial Times. 25 March 2012.

http://laposte.fr

http://auspost.au

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166103/post-office-not-broke

What’s the Deal With the Tuareg and a Coup in Mali?

Hello all!

Welcome to another edition of “What’s the Deal?” the blog that doesn’t manufacture car names after nomadic ethnic groups.

After the tuareg, people are asking, when is the Volkswagon Berber coming out?

In this week’s post, we’ll discuss the recent coup de’ tat in Mali that has ruptured government leadership and look at the fascinating, yet violent independence movement of a rebel group in the North of the country.

On March 23, junior military officers in the Malian army overthrew the democratic government and President Amadou Toumani Toure, instituting a brief military junta regime.  This military regime lasted until last week, vowing to step down, after severe international and internal political pressure forced them to hand over power to the President of the National Assembly. The coup happened to occur a couple of weeks before elections to determine new leadership in Mali anyway (the constitution prohibited President Toure from running for a third term).

the coup ended Mali's President's Toure of duty

The officers had carried out the coup in apparent frustration to former President Toure’s loss of control in the North of the country where ethnic Tuareg peoples had taken armed resistance to the state.  Tuareg rebels had beaten Malian armed forces consistently since battles began in January.  Frustration for the coup leaders peaked when the Tuaregs declared victory and control in several Northern areas, including Gao and the ancient trading city of Timbuktu.  While the Tuareg, led by a separatist group, MNLA (National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad) have declared that they want their own controlled area an “independent” state of Azawad, the interruption of civilian rule in the capital, Bamako, has weakened the country’s ability to provide for those suffering from hunger and the ability to restore the original state of Mali.

There are several interesting political connections to the Malian crisis, such as the arms distribution from Muammar Qaddafi’s exile last summer to the Tuareg, a connection of the MNLA to Islamist extremist groups, a food crisis, a North-South split, and the disruption of a 20 year democracy in Mali; a relative success story in a region with little such activity.

Where did the guns go after the Libyan revolution?

To sort through the current foreign policy mess, we’ll take a look at the political and cultural history of the region now known as Mali and see if we can point to some key developments that shed some light and understanding on the situation.

A Trader’s Paradise

The region now known as Mali was part of 3 successive empires, the Ghana, Malinke, and Songhai that controlled the region from 700 AD to the 16th Century.  These empires controlled the strategic Arab trading routes in the Northern part of the country, through Timbuktu and Gao.  Like the impact of the Arab trade and Islamic Empire on Nigeria in the trading center of Kano, Mali’s historic trading center on the Niger River, Timbuktu, was also a great center for cultural, as well as goods exchange.

the Niger River, a resource rich waterway connecting goods and people; also connecting green land

Timbuktu in the 12th Century was an Islamic educational center with 3 universities and 180 Q’uranic schools, and featured an advanced local book copying industry.  Timbuktu and Mali were made famous as an economic powerhouse in the 14th Century as Emperor Mansa Mussa showcased the wealth and power of Timbuktu and the Malinke Empire when he made the pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324 flanked by 60,000 porters carrying 3 kg of gold each.  Mansa Mussa carried so much gold with him that his caravan personally devalued the Egyptian currency when passing through Cairo.

Timbuktu continued to flourish as Mali came under the control of the Songhai dynasty, but interestingly was taken over by the Tuareg in 1434 by Akil Akamalwal.  A historical turning point for Timbuktu and Malian prominence came in 1591 when the Moroccan army plundered the city, burned the libraries and universities that contained many important documents from the ancient city.  Stagnancy in Timbuktu and parts of West Africa continued in the 16th and 17th Centuries as higher prominence for Europeans and the slave trade rose income and influence in the South (along with the Asanti Empire) and a steady decline in the caliphates of the Islamic Empire in West Africa.

A gold laden caravan on the mecca to Mecca; Mansa Mussa made a mess of the Egyptian currency

Some quick points from this period:

• Mali was a prosperous, culturally vibrant, educated region through the trading center of Timbuktu during Islamic expansion between 700 and 1591.
• Mali was able to remain relatively conflict free despite a large make up of ethnic groups; an exception was the tuareg, who took over Timbuktu briefly in 1434.

Mali under the French (aka Soudan)

After decades of serious resistance in the 19th Century, the French objective of acquiring the valuable, strategic location of Soudan (the French name for the Malian region) was realized in 1893.  The French were pressed into furthering their holdings in Africa after the British increased their land presence in Nigeria via the strategic and economically important Niger River, and proceeded to carve up their holdings w/ other European powers at the Berlin Conference.

Not to be confused with Anglo-Egyptian Sudan

A key difference in colonial governance between the French and British in Africa, is that the British expansion was conducted by merchants interested in economic expansion and so disseminated power through existing (though dominant) circles of power.  The French, however, used their military to implement a direct, federalist rule with little effort for assimilation.  Africans North of Senegal were considered subjects, not citizens and the French also ignored traditional circles of power and authority centers, preferring to appoint a hierarchical series of commanders (to save money).

Lasting Effects of French Colonization to Independent Mali

For Mali’s immediate independence, the French use of a militaristic administration seemed to  have rubbed off as malignant military rule continued decades after independence.  Interestingly, the military has had a history of stepping into the government when the country is facing a frustrating situation (that sounds familiar…)

Who knew that the 2012 coup was the latest in a long line of takeovers by a military frustrated with civilian rule?

Example Number 1:   After severe economic problems by leaving the Franc zone and nationalizing industries, the seven year old Republic of Mali (under a semi-socialist regime) in 1967 decided to rejoin the Franc zone.  Dissatisfied with economic conditions, a group of young officers ousted the decades old US/RDA party in 1968, and replaced it with a 14 member military council with a Lt. Commander as President.

Example Number 2:  A new constitution in 1974 was written to move Mali towards civilian rule, but the military council remained in power.   A single party system was created, and in 1979, an “election” was held where General Moussa Traore won 99% of the vote for President.  Another classic example of a reluctance to give up power once obtained.  Brutal crackdowns on anti-government demonstrations following the elections in 1980 showed the military’s resolve to stay in power.

Example Number 3:  In 1991, in response to large student protests over President’s Traore’s decision to delay democracy (when other African countries had made the leap to democracy), 17 members of the military arrested the President and instituted a transition civilian council called the Transitional Committee for the Salvation of the People (CTSP) led by later President General Toure.  This paved the way for the 1992 election of a president, national assembly, and municipal council and a relatively stable democracy and 2 subsequent elections.  This was not a perfect transition of course, as plenty of public discontent and severe poverty continued beyond these elections, but comparable to the previous military ruled Mali, Democratic Mali was a significant improvement.

Turns out, the Tuareg reside in a borderless area within several country's political boundaries

In dividing up their colonial French West African holdings into separately governed districts from the 1880s to 1960, the French left the devastating colonial boundary that disregarded cultural boundaries, or in the case of the Tuareg, a lack there of.  This is highlighted by resistance movements by the Tuareg once these borders were put in place: putting a nation-less group in limbo under the “jurisdiction” or “subjugation” by other peoples.  A series of rebellions in 1963-4 and between 1990-96 saw clashes between the Tuareg and the Malian military.  Peace accords were signed in 1996, known as the “Flamme de Paix” or “Peace Flame”, but the Tuareg have claimed that much of the treaty was ignored by Mali in allocating needed resources to the impoverished Northern region, where much of the Tuareg reside.

the Tuareg claim the flamme de paix has been extinguished by a closed fist

So, the colonial boundary kept by the Malian government attempted to rein in and control a nomadic group within a border that the Tuareg didn’t recognize. This kept the Tuareg dependent on Malian government for resources that were limited at best.  This is the background of the current feud, and the impetus of the separatist desire for an autonomous state.

Contributing Factors to the “Foreign Policy Mess” in Mali

While the revolution in Libya continues its transition to democracy, the effects of the war have been devastating in Mali. Longtime allies of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Tuareg fought on the side of the regime, before retreating South of Libya after Libya’s rebel army claimed victory.  Newly reinforced with arms and ammunition, the Tuareg then set their sights on creating the aforementioned independent nation of Azawad, resulting in a standoff with the Malian army in the North of Mali.  Unable to protect the citizens of Northern towns from Tuareg takeover, nearly 10,000 people have fled the rebel captured zone (refugee camps pictured at top).  The standoff and inability to retake the territory shows the Tuareg at their strongest (thanks to their Libyan connection) and the Malian army at their weakest (diminished armed forces with insufficient government revenue).

Was the Libyan revolution a direct contributor to the Tuareg rebellion in Mali?

Many think that the MNLA (Tuareg) are motivated by and reinforced by al-Qaeda linked groups.  Though there is an Islamic group fighting against Malian forces during the upheaval, Ansar ud-Din, their goals are distinct from the MNLA.  Ansar ud-Din wants to create a state ruled by Islamic law centered in Timbuktu (a recreation of the 15th Century), not to create an independent state of Azawad for Tuareg independence.  There are fears that any type of breakaway state formed in this remote, unstable area could become a haven for Islamic fundamentalist groups (much like Somaliland continues to be).  This is an interesting development given the extent of Western counter-terror training conducted by U.S. forces for the benefit of the Malian army.  The U.S. involvement in counteracting terror groups seems to have failed in Mali as the rebellion grows and military efforts to put down the rebels have not succeeded.

The failed effort to contain the region and the growing poverty and hunger in the region will have huge implications for the new President and may involve larger efforts by international aid groups or even the UN.

These are all interesting side stories that will need to be watched closely in the coming weeks in Mali.  For now the questions we need to continue to follow are:

1. Will the newly restored government try to end the cease-fire with the MNLA and retake the North?
2. Will the Tuareg’s effort towards independence find international approval? (there have been little if any positive responses so far from international groups)
3. Will a destabilized region become a hotbed of terror or anti-Western activity?

We here at “What’s the Deal?” will be following these developments closely as they happen.  For now, we should remember these important points from Mali’s history for context:

• Mali has a rich history and great prominence during the Islamic Era through the prosperous and important trading center of Timbuktu.
• French colonialism exacerbated a long running feud between the Tuareg nomadic group and the many settled peoples of Mali.
• Mali has seen several military coups out of frustration with civilian government failure.
• Mali has had a short, yet successful stint with democracy after 3 decades of autocratic rule (until recent events)

Thanks for tuning in, and we’ll see you on the other side of history (tomorrow)!

Your Faithful Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources and further reads:

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150343027/foreign-policy-the-mess-in-mali

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/world/africa/junta-in-mali-agrees-to-step-down.html?ref=africa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCcvIChcw74

Disputed desert : decolonisation, competing nationalisms and Tuareg rebellions in northern Mali, Jean Sebastian Lecocq

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2828.htm

http://www.timbuktufoundation.org/history.htm

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/K-12/French_16178.html

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/02/05/world/africa/MALI.html?ref=mali

What’s the Deal With Reform in Myanmar?

Hello All!

You'd be surprised at what you'll see through a historical lens

Welcome to another edition of “What’s the Deal?” the blog that views global news through a historical lens (not bifocals).

In this week’s blog, we’ll discuss the hoopla surrounding the parliamentary elections in Myanmar (the country formerly known as Burma) and how the media is turning away from a huge human rights problem.

What’s that problem, you ask?

For decades, a long standing war has been waged by the Burmese authoritarian military against the ethnic minorities of Myanmar.  Unfortunately, even with the recent reforms and a commendable return of suffrage rights this spring, this campaign of human rights abuses continues.  Hopefully, as long as it continues, it will remain a deterrent to ending economic sanctions of the Myanmar government by the U.S. and others.

Disclaimer:  I want to make clear that I in no way oppose or am unhappy with the progress that Myanmar has made in allowing the parliamentary elections to proceed.  It may seem from my tone that I am denouncing the whole efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi and her election as a candidate for the National League for Democracy.  This is not true; I am genuinely ecstatic that repression has subsided in a country mired in authoritarian rule that has mirrored North Korea in its global isolation and lack of freedoms.  My point with this blog post is to recognize that this election is a first step in the transition to a full democracy; one that includes freedoms for all ethnic groups in a united Myanmar.

President U Thein Sein took a U turn from the military

When the military junta ended the house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in 2010, the junta also paved the way for the first free elections since 1990 with a resurfacing of a constitutional democracy.  President U Thein Sein has also freed other political prisoners and reformed some of the government control of the economy that had kept most of Myanmar’s 55 million people in poverty.  Back in the election of 1990, the National League for Democracy, led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, had actually won the majority of seats  in an election for parliament in Myanmar.  Suu Kyi was a winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize and more famously in Burma, the daughter of Aung San, the revolutionary who helped gain independence from the British.  The ruling military junta, however, had refused to accept this result; plunging the country back into military rule and creating the isolation, poverty, and human rights violations within the state until these very recent reforms.

It is fitting that we talk about the issue of Burmese repression of Kachin, Karen, and other ethnic peoples of Myanmar now, during this political revolution of sorts.  For while political and economic freedoms come for the Burmese, the picture is quite different in the rest of the country.  To find out how Myanmar has arrived at a speedy divergence from their military junta rule and what ethnic tensions remain, we’ll take a look at the history of the region and how ethnic tensions and the military state have come to be in the present.

From 3 Kingdoms to a Junta

Unless you want to cross the Himalayas, crossing through Myanmar is the best way to get to SE Asia

For centuries, Burma has been an important through-way for explorers, travelers, plunderers, and traders.  Similar to the Middle East, Burma is a vital route from the Far East to the West.  This geographical position has shaped Burma’s history from the ancient kingdoms to World War II.  The travels of Marco Polo, the conquering Mongol empire, the extensive British Empire, and the Japanese invasion of WW2 all took advantage of the strategic position of the region now known as Myanmar.  This should be kept in mind while looking at the chronological history of the country and peoples.

Burma was unified first in 1044 AD under the Burmese rulership of the Bagan Dynasty, often considered the “Golden Age” of Burmese history as a huge city (Bagan) was built along the mighty Irrawaddy River, and Buddhism became a cultural mainstay.  The Bagan Dynasty prospered until 1287, when the Mongols, once again make a plundering appearance in history, destroyed Bagan, and disunited the region, creating a political vacuum.

Don't call them plunderers, or they will sack your city.... just ask Kiev

Ethnic Shan peoples established a political capital at what would become Mandalay, but did not recreate one unified state.  Other peoples took power, during this interim period, but it wasn’t until 1486 that a new coagulated Burmese empire took the place of Bagan, in the form of the Tuangoo Dynasty.  Tuangoo lasted until 1752, but left little impact except the conquest of the Shan and retaking of territory.  Military escapades and infighting struck down Tuangoo, much like it would its succeeding dynasty, the Konbaung Dynasty.  Consistent with its predecessor, Konbaung featured heavy fighting against multiple surrounding peoples, including the Mons, Arakanese, and Siamese (the Burmese burned down the Siamese capital of Ayuthaya in 1767).  By the 18th Century, the Burmese empires were showing significant signs of decline as more powerful empires asserted their power, first through 4 invasions by the Chinese, and eventually the British.

Lasting from 1044 – 1885, the united Burmese Empires are better known for their eventual fall to the far-flung but powerful British Empire, but should be remembered more for a development of:

• A well developed civilization and sophisticated culture during the Bagan Dynasty.
  
• A history of clashing with the many cultures surrounding the Burmese: a militaristic empire.
  

the British had a rice little operation going in Burma

In a series of 3 wars, from 1824 – 1885 the British were able to latch onto and expand territorial conquests, until a full cession of the Burmese territory from the Burmese Kingdom to the British in 1885.  The British put Burma under the jurisdiction under their huge colony next door to the West, India.

Growing nationalism movements emerged from early resistance to the British.  The British (through private companies) had built an exploitative and extensive rice farming operation.  Though many Burmese owned or operated their land, any profits were taken by middlemen who controlled the logistics to sell products.  Rice had risen in demand significantly, and the British had been able to secure an efficient (and profitable) way to ship the cash crop from the strategic river delta capital at Rangoon to Europe through the Suez Canal.  Failing to reap the profits from their own land, nationalism and anti-colonial sentiment became popular among the Burmese.

This was best exemplified when the Japanese invaded Burma in 1941 and Burmese nationalists rose up and fought with the Japanese against their colonizers.  A scholar of Marxism and a Burmese nationalist, General Aung San led a group called the “30 Comrades” and the Burmese Army in siding with the Japanese in driving out the British Army from Burma.  An important note: sticking with the British were the ethnic Karen and Kachin people who fought valiantly against the Japanese (perhaps because they believed the British provided a better chance to gain rights than with the Burmese).

the Japanese taking Rangoon was a low point for the British Empire

Despite its huge importance in the war, the Burma campaign is largely forgotten in general WW2 discussion.  The widely used and vital Burma Road, one of the only means of the Allies reaching China and supplying Chiang-Kai Shek against the Japanese, was finally retaken by the Allied forces in 1944 after a brutal campaign (being sidelined several times by Churchill in favor of his favorite Southern Europe campaigns).  In addition to the important Burma road, there was a huge worry among the British that Burma was a stepping stone to Britain’s colonial crown jewel, India, being invaded by the Japanese.   Eventually, the Burmese army saw the inevitable collapse of the Japanese empire, and decided to join the Allies in retaking Burma.

This side-switching held a huge importance for the country after the war, as General Aung Sang (did we mention he is the father of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi?) demanded a complete economic and political independence from the British for the Burmese.  This was duly (if begrudgingly) granted by the British in 1947, and a constitution was put forth, but not soon enough as General Aung Sang was assassinated with most of his cabinet in 1948 before the document could be signed.

The Impact of the Colonial Period:

• Saw Burmese military authority rise in prominence & leadership wiTh a distrust of the West
  
• Drew political boundaries around ethnic groups whom Burma had had historical antagonistic relations with
• Left a lack of infrastructure development
  

  The British Empire: lions make terrible map drawers for socio-economic development

For the next 14 years after Aung Sang’s assassination, Burma was technically a constitutional democracy; but a dysfunctional parliament, political turmoil, and most importantly a persistent division and conflict with the many ethnic groups existed within the state and kept Burma politically unstable.  This was partially a factor of the British creating an artificial border around multiple ethnic groups that the Burmese adopted, but also reflected the long-standing ethnic conflict that had existed between the Burmese and other groups and the decision for the Karen and Kachin to stand with the British and fight against the Burmese/Japanese during the war.  The division and lack of stability convinced the then Prime Minister U Nen to allow military rule in 1958 to restore political power.

This decision boded poorly for the fledgling state as a relatively strong military became well connected to civilian power.  The coup in 1962 by General Ne Win hardly seems surprising.  His takeover of power and reversal from constitutional democracy was certainly not good news for the Burmese people; but even less so for the rest of the ethnic groups residing within the country.  A xenophobic authoritarian regime labeled under the disguise of a “Burmese Path to Socialism”, established the Burmese Socialist Program Party (the only political party allowed) and nationalized industries, isolating Burma from much of the world which had disastrous socio-economic consequences.

Widespread suppression of protests, basic freedoms, and demands for change were swift and mercilessly crushed by the armed extension of the Government.  Widespread protests in 1974, and again in 1988 against the government and the abysmal economic conditions showed the “necessity to restore order” killing thousands of demonstrators.  1988 saw the disbanding of the Burmese Socialist Program Party, the “constitution” and the implementation of the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), essentially a military leadership council (junta) that was put in place to restore order from the continuing demonstrations.  Restoring order meant killing 3,000 people, and forcing 100,000 into hiding and exile. At the same time, an opposition figure emerged to represent a new democratic Burma, one Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

"If you thought the first 28 years were bad, wait till we win this election and then have to endure another 11 years of this"

The SLORC, having performed its “restoration” readied the country for a supposed return to a constitutional democracy in elections in 1990, under a new country name: the Republic of Myanmar.  Running under the National League for Democracy, Ms. Suu Kyi proved to be a very popular figure winning  the majority of votes and seats in parliament.  Having incorrectly guessed that their own chosen politicians would win, the SLORC threw out the vote, imprisoned many opposition politicians, and retained its grip on power, refusing to call the Parliament into effect.  So instead of a path to a democracy, the military junta couldn’t bear to see their power waned through fair elections, so they decided just to keep power for themselves.

the price for being the opposition leader

For the next 20 years, the junta continued the suppression of its own people; and locked up dissidents (at best) or used torture, coercion, and violence to silence opposition.  Ms. Suu Kyi, as it is well known, was kept under house arrest, away from politics, yet her legend as a voice for the Burmese people rose to great fame in Myanmar and around the world.  In 2010, a great change came about as a member of the military, General U Thein Sein was appointed President as part of “elections” supervised by the junta (read: they appointed military officials to a non-democratic parliament).  Surprisingly, the new President, took a U-turn by announcing great reforms: that he would end the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi (to great international relief) and that Myanmar would hold elections permitting Suu Kyi’s party the National League for Democracy to run in 2012.  With much fanfare, Suu Kyi rode a huge popular wave to victory for a seat in the parliament, while the National League for Democracy won some 60% of the seats up for a vote.

Much remains to be dissected about what all this really means.  Is Myanmar actually a democracy now?  Will the military allow the elections to stand, or will they take power back as they did in 1990?  Speaking of the military, they still are the dominant force in Myanmar and despite reforms in the last 2 years, no change has come for the country’s ethnic groups who are still fighting for their lives.

Kachin up on their guerilla tactics

The Kachin people, living in the North of Myanmar are seemingly a people without a home (much like our friends the Kurds).  Fighting for autonomy for years against the Burmese military has been a deadly exercise that has continued to the present.  A recent report has shown the use of torture, rape, and civilian killings by the Burmese military in an attempt to reign in the Kachin guerrillas.  Burmese military has also forced children, men, and women to join or work for the Burmese military, and the government outlaws individual culture and language.  the geopolitical situation is more dire: Kachin state happens to contain great natural resources in gold, jade, and timber and its rivers are exploited by the Chinese for hydroelectric power.  China has much to gain from the suppression of the Kachin, and Myanmar has so far been inclined to comply.

The Karen people have faced a similar similar situation.  Having braved the Japanese to save the Allied cause in Burma in WW2, they now have braved the might of the Burmese military for 60 years in the longest running civil war in world history.  Similar discrimination, violent repression, and lack of civil rights exists for the Arakanese, Shan, Mon, Chin, and Karenni, though their situation is not mired in a full on war.

they wrote the book on civil war

So, it is pretty clear that with a growing military (the size of the army has doubled in the past 20 years) and a history of crimes against humanity, Myanmar is far from a free democracy.

Conclusion?

An all too short summary of the history of Myanmar has given us a few important takeaways:

How did Myanmar arrive at their militarized authoritarian regime?

• Since the Tuangoon Dynasty, the Burmese leadership has been highly militaristic
• Its strategic geographical location made it susceptible to invasion, so Burma has recognized the importance of a strong military
• In controlling its people, the military led government has recognized that to continue control involves growing military might and suppressing democracy

How did we arrive at a point where ethnic violence and human rights violations are perpetuated in Myanmar?

• the Burmese have clashed with its neighbors and surrounding ethnic groups for centuries
• the British adopted a political boundary for Burma for colonial and economic reasons, but ignored ethnic boundaries; this was passed on to independent Burma in 1948.
• the rise of the military in civilian government in 1962 saw complete suppression of outside ethnic groups and an attempt to combine all ethnic groups under one Burmese regime.

A quick analysis of the present:

This past week’s elections come with some good news: Fortunately, the United States has actually taken a tough stand with the Burmese and Myanmar governments since the fateful coup in 1962 (a great beginning to a limerick) brought a militarized state.  the U.S. has only recently returned diplomatic relations with President Thein Sein’s political reforms.  Even more hopeful, the U.S. is restraining further removal of economic relations and alliances until steps are taken to stop the war against the Karen and Kachin.

But of course there are several worries: Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has stood as a representative for the people, and said she would work to bring peace and rights to ethnic minorities, but how much power is the military actually willing to give its parliament?  This is very murky.  Also, a worry is that the U.S., like China, will take its own interests above protecting human rights (when has the U.S. ever done that?…).  The U.S. has developed a new Pacific/Asia military strategy, basically an attempt to counter Chinese military growth.  Will the U.S. race to coddle the new Myanmar government just to build its Asian relations, or will it force the Myanmar government to end its horrible practices against ethnic minorities?

If the U.S. is going to water down sanctions, they should start with this queue

Myanmar for decades has suffered economic stagnancy which has hampered development and left most of the population in abject poverty.  With an annual per capita of $841 and ranking 138 in the Human Development Index, Myanmar is abjectly poor, which is why most work by the U.S. so far since last year has been in supplying aid.  Finally, we should think about what the fate of the minority people of Myanmar will be.  Do they want complete autonomy, or are they okay with being a part of Myanmar, you know, as long as they receive basic liberties?  Their final decision will determine if the wars continue.

Well, this will certainly be fascinating to keep track of as the elected officials come to parliament this year, and see how many questions from the above section are answered.  Hopefully, the media will choose to focus on both Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the continuing war zones across the country.

Until Next time,

Your Faithful Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources & Further Reads

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/20/world/asia/northern-myanmar-crimes-against-kachin-report.html?ref=myanmar

http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2012/04/06/the-united-states-begins-lifting-sanctions-on-myanmar/

Charney, Michael W, A History of Modern Burma

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/world/asia/myanmar-elections.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=global-home

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/myanmar/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=myanmar&st=cse

the River of Lost Footsteps: A History of Burma, Thant Myint-U

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm

burmamattersnow.org

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

What’s the Deal With Ensuring the Uninsured Are Insured? Part II: the IPAB

Hello All!

"What's the Deal?" learned a lot from "the Klumps"

Welcome to another edition of “What’s the Deal?” the blog that makes its sequels as good as the original.

In this week’s blog, we return with the 2nd installment of our 4 part series on health care: ‘Ensuring the Uninsured are Insured.’  Part one can be found here.  Since the two year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was this past Friday, I thought it fitting to write a piece on the legislation’s most recent controversial subject on Medicare: the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.  (Note: the debate over IPAB is not to be confused with the release of the iPad 3.  It can get quite confusing.)

this device will ration our healthcare!

On Thursday, the House voted to repeal the IPAB, strictly on party lines, but with earlier democratic support.  Though the repeal of IPAB is unlikely to pass the Senate or be signed by President Obama, it’s worth looking at why the provision for the board has sparked such opposition.

So, what’s the deal with this easily misunderstood acronym?  What is this board, what does it have to do with healthcare, and why is it so heavily opposed by conservatives and lightly opposed by liberals?

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) from the Affordable Care Act, is a board appointed by the President, that according to the legislation, is given the task of finding ways to reduce costs in Medicare spending; essentially a cost control group that will:

“develop and submit proposals to Congress and the President aimed at extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund.  The Board is expected to focus on ways to target waste in the system, and recommend ways to reduce costs, improve health outcomes for patients, and expand access to high-quality care.”

IPAB is really a backstop more than anything else, because its cost cutting proposals will only take effect if healthcare costs rise above projected levels of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Also, IPAB’s ideas will only be put into effect if Congress fails to create legislation to reduce medicare spending.  So at least according to the law, the IPAB’s solutions will only be implemented as a last measure.  Also, the law prohibits IPAB from rationing care, restricting benefits, or changing eligibility criteria.

Precisely

The argument against IPAB isn’t really in the board’s task or mission to reduce costs, it is really about the makeup of the board, the ideology behind creating the board, and the overall ideology of the healthcare law itself: that the Federal Government is tasked with providing health care and keeping costs low instead of competition and the free market.

2 of the main antagonistic arguments are that IPAB will “usurp the role of Congress” and that “IPAB will actually ration, or reduce care”.  It is interesting to note that it is explicitly written in the law to make sure the board doesn’t do either of those things. Both House republicans and some democrats have expressed worry that the IPAB will be an unaccountable group who could drastically cut health care services for seniors all in the name of savings.  Some healthcare providers are worried about the cost cutting and waste/fraud eliminating that the Board is responsible for; that it will reduce care that is already too limited.  A worry that having the Government controlling the price of healthcare will price out both the providers and the consumers.

Representatives are concerned that the President will use his Executive powers to appoint a board that doesn’t have to answer to Congress and that will use the “big government” reach to control Medicare costs when the “free market” should be setting the prices.  Again this is more of a simple political ideological argument than anything else: over how much power the IPAB has and should be able to have.

You know we put the preventive language in the bill right? Or did you not read the bill...

The rebuttal to opposition is that the Board is a necessary piece of healthcare reform, because it allows healthcare to remain affordable to Medicare recipients.  Specific measures in the law are in place to make sure the IPAB isn’t the only decision making body.  Again, the law prohibits the board from implementing proposals that reduce care or restrict/change eligibility.  The supporters of IPAB are arguing that the board is in line with the same idea of the entire healthcare law: that Government is needed to expand coverage to more people at an affordable rate, because the free market has priced out the people who need healthcare the most.  IPAB is therefore needed to ensure that seniors will be able to afford the Medicare coverage they need.

So, this is the most recent example of lawmakers arguing over how much the Federal government should be involved in regulating an industry; another battle in the political and ideological struggle of American history: how much should the Federal Government be involved in the lives of its citizens?
Of course, the United States was formed as a response to an overarching government that imposed its will on its colonies to generate revenue.  America’s original political fights came from over how much power the first U.S. government should have.  The Federalist vs. Anti-federalist fight is essentially continuing into the present, especially since “libertarian” groups like the tea-partiers and others have become powerful popular movements in an election year.

So let’s take a look at a specific example from U.S. history, where the Federal Government expanded its power to regulate or influence an industry through a central board or committee.

Creation of the SEC

A good analogy to the American ideological struggle over healthcare is the creation of the Securities & Exchange Commission under the FDR administration. Here is an example of another Government “board” whose responsibility is to protect investors; similar to IPAB’s role of protecting Medicare recipients.

Joe Kennedy: More popular in London business circles than America

As is well known, the SEC was created in response to the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the catastrophic end to the 1920s: an era of huge securities investment with little information available, and little knowledge of the risks involved.  After a Congressional commission on how to stabilize the markets and protect investors, the Securities Act of 1934 was passed which created the SEC.  The SEC was created with guidelines to make sure the commission had no authority to approve a security, only the powers to ensure investor registration sheets were accurate (along with anti-fraud measures, etc).

Of course, in line with the theme of this blog, the legislation was not without its detractors and ideological opponents. A great deal of opposition came from businesses and issuers of stock themselves who thought that increased regulation would block growth during the depression and wouldn’t work to stabilize the markets.

You couldn't charge them all with tax evasion

Much of the opposition in congressional debate to the Securities Act focused on the legislation’s protection of “suckers” and “fools” who didn’t know enough to not be duped by worthless stock or investment.  The argument was that like Government’s inability to prohibit alcohol, a Federal reach to protect investors would be futile (“you can’t protect fools from themselves”).

These representatives in 1934 might not have all thought that Federal protection of investors was the reincarnation of King George and the British tariff laws, but Federal overreach to counter the free market was absolutely a theme, even if on the surface opposition didn’t directly say this.  A social Darwinist tinge to the opposition of the law (ie. let the gamblers and fools suffer for their “bad decision making” in investing) was geared to letting the free market, or the stock market keep or eliminate the winners and losers in investment and speculation.  People that the Fed should not ultimately be helping stay in the speculation game, because they “caused” the financial collapse, not overzealous brokers and lax rules, etc.

For better or for worse, the securities exchange act was enacted and signed into law despite this opposition, but the content of the disagreement puts this fight into the same arena as today’s disagreements on IPAB.

Conclusion

This is at the very least an incomplete analysis and analogy, but the overall themes and some small details pervade over both the implementation of the SEC and the debate over IPAB:

• Both are Govt. created boards or commissions in larger pieces of legislation (IPAB – healthcare reform, and the SEC – the Securities Act) regulating a certain part of an industry.
• Protection is the goal behind each board: Protecting the American people from risky investments or unaffordable access to healthcare.
• Opposition for both has come in many forms, but mostly from business and the worry that a “meddling” Government will impede growth.
• Behind the opposition to each board is a political ideology (as old as the U.S. itself) that Government should have a limited role in determining the outcomes of the free market (and not a direct one).

So, we see one connection of a long-standing political debate resonating in the IPAB debate.  Again, what’s important to keep in mind is context: the IPAB is part of a larger piece of legislation (the Affordable Care Act) which nearly, if not all, Republicans, oppose vehemently as a gross overstep of the powers of the Federal Government.  Putting a chink in the armor of public opinion of the healthcare law is the goal here, a political scientist might say.  As a historian,  I might not see exactly that image, but merely a continuation of a political ideological fight in a different context.

Stay tuned for our 3rd portion of the 4 part blog series: “What’s the Deal With Ensuring the Uninsured are Insured?” where we’ll look at another piece of the legislation and see how a historical explanation can help unravel it.

Until next time,

Your Faithful Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources & Further Reads:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

https://www.politicopro.com/healthcare/

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3702

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2011/May/09/ipab-faq.aspx

http://opencrs.com/document/R41511/

Susan Phillips & J. Richard Zecher, The SEC and the Public Interest

Joel Seligman, the transformation of Wall Street: A history of Modern Corporate Finance

http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml

CAN REGULATION PROTECT “SUCKERS” AND “FOOLS” FROM
THEMSELVES? REFLECTIONS ON THE RHETORIC OF INVESTORS AND
INVESTOR PROTECTION UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
By John H. Walsh* https://www.msu.edu/~jbsl/pdfs/2007-2008_Walsh.pdf

What’s the Deal With the Status of Nuclear Power?

Hello All!

Welcome to another edition of “What’s the Deal?” the blog whose half life is longer than one year.

In this week’s blog, we’ll discuss what’s happened in the politics of nuclear energy since last year’s devastating earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power meltdown in Japan that has left great regions of Japan in physical and economic ruin.  While Japan has begun to rebuild from the disaster, the current affairs of nuclear power has taken a negative turn, with some countries, such as Germany, departing from their energy infrastructures completely.

It has been a flight of the nuclear Valkyries

But why has this happened?  Wasn’t nuclear technology supposed to be the energy source of the future?  Right?  No burning of fossil fuels, it’s based on cool physics, and you know…. the possibility for mutations to cause super human abilities (citation needed).

We’ll delve into this atomic “split” and see how the Fukushimi Dai’ichi meltdown was only part of the changing landscape of world energy.

A Disaster and a Reaction

puts a new perspective on houses in the U.S. market being "under water"

On March 11, 2011 a magnitude 9.0 earthquake off the Northeast coast of Japan unleashed a huge tidal wave or tsunami that raced to shore and caused immediate and immense devastation as a concerned world looked on in horror.  As huge power grid failures and blackouts caused rescue workers to grasp in the dark for survivors, a larger menace was about to change the disaster recovery, and Japan’s economic future.  Electronically powered coolers at the Fukushimi Dai-ichi nuclear reactor facility suddenly failed, and three of the four reactors at the facility overheated and began to meltdown.

A slow disaster response and an insufficient plan in place by the nuclear facility’s owners, Tepco, caused a huge radioactive leak from the reactors.  This leak changed the strategy for the rescue team from salvaging the lost and buried from the affected area, to complete evacuation from the radioactive contaminated area, leaving thousands buried, lost, or drowned.  Hydrogen gas accumulation from the reactor’s remaining heat (the 3% not shut down by shutting off the plant) caused an explosion and release of radioactive material well beyond the 20 km evacuation zone.  Suppression of information led people to evacuate the area following the plume of radioactive material; evacuating to higher risk areas.

Don't go Northwest. that's all the Japanese government had to announce

The nuclear meltdown was an epic disaster and embarrassment for the Japanese government and Tepco, eventually forcing Prime Minister Naoto Kan to step down.  As the full scale of the disaster and nuclear meltdown became apparent – with death tolls reaching 20,000, 22.5 million tons of debris scattered, huge tracts of farm land leached by salt water, and of course the massive spread of radiation from the reactors forcing the abandonment of a huge swath of the country – many nuclear energy producers around the world began to question their faith and use of nuclear energy in fairly reactionary policies.

Since the Fukushima meltdown, it's been a chain reaction of anti nuclear sentiment beyond Japan.

This first started with the Japanese themselves who have cut off 52 of their 54 nuclear reactors in the country, and are contemplating shutting off the remaining 2 in the near future.  This plan seems like a natural and logical response given what had happened.  By shutting down their nuclear energy program after the earthquake disaster, the Japanese are coming to the realization that it might not make sense to have 54 reactors on an island nation that is subject to tectonic plate shifts and tsunami aftermaths.  They are also realizing that poor management and lack of oversight (the causes of the poor response and safety regulations) need to be changed.  The logistics of this, however, are very difficult and for the short term make little sense.

Japan gets about 30% of its energy from nuclear power.  With its reactors on a seemingly permanent hiatus,  Japan has had to replace this lost supply with increased imports in natural gas.  This is very expensive.  Nuclear energy has for decades provided Japan with its own energy with a smaller dependence on imports (or colonization) for energy.  The drawdown from self-reliance makes it financially difficult for Japan, and reduces the gains it has made in finance and manufacturing since the disaster.  Japan will have to make serious strides in entrepreneurship and research into alternative domestic energy sources if it is to stay nuclear free with a strong Yen.  This is all in the short term, however.  If Japan decides it is too financially risky to abort its nuclear program all together, Japan may yet again return to nuclear power, but will it have learned its lessons?

German nuclear policy = Posterized

The reaction from Angela Merkel and Germany in May of 2011 was a bit confusing, to me at least.  Agreeing to shut down 9 nuclear facilities that supply 23 % of Germany’s energy doesn’t seem to be a fitting response, though a popular one in Germany.  Anti-nuclear sentiment has been around for years, and Merkel used the huge increase in popular response against nuclear power to press for the shutdown of nuclear plants in Germany.

Though the SPD party and the Greens had fought to phase out nuclear power before the disaster, Ms. Merkel (upon her election) and her energy advisers thought it best to promote a transition energy policy to provide plentiful energy within an existing infrastructure before a large-scale change to wind and solar.  Chancellor Merkel’s revert to her predecessor’s policy of closing all reactors by 2021 last May came with the immediate order to stop use of 7 of the oldest reactors, and then phase out the rest by 2021.  The reactionary policy was out of fear of a Fukushima like disaster, not out of sensible policy.  Here’s why:

1. Germany, because of its geography, is not prone to major disruptive disasters like earthquakes and devastating tsunamis.
2. The more fitting worry from the Japanese disaster is that Nuclear plants are not regulated for safety and disaster preparation.
3. Replacing a significant amount of energy use will have to come from a fossil fuel source (most likely coal) until further work on wind projects is completed (this sort of defeats the purpose, no?)

Instead of figuring out an expensive way to replace nuclear power, Germany should overhaul their nuclear plant regulations to fit a more rigorous safety examination, though there’s evidence that Germany’s regulations are already much tighter and better managed than their unfortunate Japanese colleagues.

those nukes put holes in our cheese, man! No nukes in our cheese! Woo!

An even bigger problem faces Germany’s neighbor to the Southeast, the Swiss.  Swiss officials announced last year they would not renew their aging nuclear facilities after their lifespans run their course.  What’s the problem you ask?  Switzerland gets nearly 40% of its energy from nuclear facilities.  Even though they aren’t getting rid of all the facilities at once, the issues of replacing that source and keeping energy costs low will be persistent.  For now, officials in Switzerland are continuing to call for a nuclear Bern-out.

In addition to Switzerland and Germany, Spain has banned the construction of new reactors, Italy has voted to stay non-nuclear, Belgium has considered phasing out its nuclear plants, and Mexico has sidelined 10 construction projects.  So, the Japanese nuclear disaster has indirectly caused a tidal wave of retreat from nuclear power in many countries.

The Nuclear Energy Revolution & the Phase In

Ever since physicists attained nuclear fission in 1938, the ability to unleash a huge amount of power and energy from splitting radioactive atoms has taken a central role in physics and public policy.  The well known Government backed secret scientific projects to develop nuclear weapons took the central role of physics due to the obvious geopolitical situation of WW2 (an understatement).  While “Tube Alloys” (Great Britain), the “Manhattan Project” (the U.S.) and the Soviet atomic program developed reactors capable of handling “fast” moving neutrons capable of creating an uncontrolled chain reaction releasing massive amounts of energy (a bomb), scientists had already theorized the practical application out of the controlled reaction.  This was confirmed by the 2nd MAUD Report (a commission report on the development and uses of atomic power), 

“The second MAUD Report concluded that the controlled fission of uranium could be used to provide energy in the form of heat for use in machines… It concluded that the ‘uranium boiler’ had considerable promise for future peaceful uses but that it was not worth considering during the present war.”

The reaction of course is the chain reaction resulting from nuclear fission of the radioactive isotope of Uranium, mainly U-235 (a rare isotope) and Plutonium 239. I detail the nuclear reaction in more detail in my blog post on North Korea’s nuclear program.

Idaho: famous for nuclear potatoes?

The awesome power of nuclear energy demonstrated at the end of WW2 brought more public focus on nuclear power as an energy source.  (Privately though, many governments continued to grow their nuclear stockpiles).  The first nuclear reactor to harness the fission reaction and produce electricity (a small amount) was the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-1) in Idaho in 1951.  The reorientation of nuclear research towards energy was further confirmed by President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” program in 1953.  In Russia the following year, an existing graphite moderated reactor was converted into an electricity producing reactor.

One of the main efforts was in constructing nuclear powered submarines, an important development that would allow subs to stay underwater indefinitely; a game-changer in Naval strategy and history.  This was pioneered in the U.S. by Admiral Hyman Rickover who installed a pressurized water reactor (PWR), a type of light water reactor, onto U.S. naval submarines.  Rickover’s work was replicated on land as well as PWRs became the mainstay for American nuclear energy, and around the world, as currently 68% of the world’s nuclear energy comes from PWRs.

PWR must be a good nuclear design, it won a blue ribbon in 1896

Beyond Government research and application, Westinghouse and General Electric in the U.S. pioneered their commercial nuclear reactors to connect to the electricity power grid they had helped create in the late 19th Century.  In 1960, they created 250 MWe (Mega Watt Hour Electric) PWR and Boiling Water Reactors.  By the end of the decade, the power capabilities had increased 4 fold, up to 1000 MWe.  Many of these reactors in the U.S. stayed in operation until the early 2000s.

the French energy policy from Messmer to Sarkozy has Gone Fission'

A general lack of enthusiasm for nuclear power set in in the 1970s and a stagnation in research, development and build up progressed throughout the next 3 decades, with the exception of the French.  Having been occupied during WW2 and experiencing political instability in the post-war period, France was a bit late into large-scale use and development of nuclear energy.  In 1973, as a result of the global oil crisis, Prime Minister Pierre Messmer put forth a plan to generate all of France’s energy from nuclear power.  3 plants were built that same year, and produced 56 reactors over the next 15 years.  France presently gets 86% of its energy from nuclear power.

A greater concern for the environmental harm that nuclear plants could cause as well as the potential danger of a nuclear meltdown also dampered public spirit for nuclear energy.  Public worry over nuclear power increased greatly after the nuclear reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania at 3 mile island in 1979.  Though no one was killed, there was a bigger push against further development of new nuclear facilities, and improved safety measures.

An even larger disaster struck in 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear power plant in the Ukraine.  The steam explosion and hydrogen explosion caused several fires, killed two workers immediately and caused the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation – large quantities of radioactive substances were released into the air for about 10 days.  The accident released 7 times more radiation than the Fukushima meltdown.  28 people died from radiation poisoning (mostly Iodine 131 and Cesium 137) within a few weeks of the accident, and forced the resettlement of 220,000 people .

What does the Chernobyl fallout mean for further development? And for the environment?

You might figure that a similar retreat from nuclear power today occurred after 3 mile & Chernobyl, but more attention was paid to fixing design flaws and working to adequately train workers (direct causes of those accidents).  Surprisingly, prior to Fukushima, these two instances were the only nuclear reactor meltdowns and explosions in the history of nuclear power.  Instead of public demand away from nuclear power, people took the flawed Soviet nuclear design as a nail in the coffin for the Soviet Union.

A nuclear renaissance at the beginning of the 21st Century brought nuclear energy back to the forefront of public and private efforts.  The recognition that nuclear power plays a hugely important role in the geopolitics of energy, the explosion of electricity need around the world and the role of nuclear energy as an energy source to limit carbon emissions and combat climate change all played roles in this regard.

It turns out that if a country (ie. Japan) uses a great deal of nuclear power, they are less dependent on foreign fossil fuels, most notably oil which is such a volatile commodity (no pun intended) when it comes from a recently unstable region.  The other part of the renaissance was the introduction of a new generation of nuclear power plants in 2004.  This 3G 1600 MWe reactor has been installed in Finland, but has created the most buzz in East Asia, where there is huge demand.  Much excitement in global nuclear power has led to many projects being discussed and planned, but questions remain about whether to push through with these plans.

What can this nuclear history brief tell us about the status of nuclear power one year after the disaster at Fukushimi Dai-ichi?

• Nuclear power has seemingly great potential to supply more and more of the world’s energy needs
• If a country, or the world for the matter really wanted to make the change to mostly nuclear, they could do it (see France).
• Previous nuclear accidents have not phased out or stopped nuclear production; they have enhanced them and made production safer.
• Development of nuclear infrastructure requires huge public investment and public support.  
• Countering the effects of carbon emissions and the security risks of foreign oil continues to be a big pro for nuclear development

So what happens next for the world’s nuclear power plants?

In certain areas, like Europe and the U.S., nuclear growth will probably remain stagnant. this is mostly due to a slow economy, but public dissent as a reaction to the Fukushima meltdown has already shown itself to be a deterrent to nuclear growth (Germany).  On the other side, the 3G nuclear plants that debuted in 2004 are generating much fanfare for their planned use in China, a country who could use some lower carbon emissions, though implementation will likely be delayed for some time because of the disaster.

Nuclear energy has questions to answer

But will nuclear become the most widely used energy source?  Most likely not, even if use in developing countries increases.  Huge environmental risks remain, most notably in the storage of nuclear waste; a problem that has yet to arrive at a sensible long term solution.  (dry cask storage is a decent start).  Nuclear energy is certainly not a fix-all as was advertised in its ascent to widespread commercial use in the 1960s.  Until environmental problems are solved, and political means align, it looks like nuclear power will remain just one of the pieces in the energy grid.

Until we break down the next radioactive issue,

Your Faithul Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources and Further Reads:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/03/in-japan-nuclear-clean-up-may-be-mission-impossible.htmlher

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june12/fukushima_03-09.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/nuclear-aftershocks/map-u-s-nuclear-power-plants/

The Economist, Briefing: Japan after the 3/11 Disaster – The Death of Trust. 3/10/2012

http://www.economist.com/content/power-ranges?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/powerranges

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/12/148462747/to-save-japans-northeast-a-radical-rethink-required

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/11/148136383/nuclear-woes-push-japan-into-a-new-energy-future

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/09/148231452/a-year-on-japan-is-still-looking-for-the-road-ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13549985

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

What’s the Deal With Ensuring the Uninsured are Insured?… Part 1: The Exchange

Hello all!

Welcome to another edition of “What’s the Deal?”, the blog that attempts to confuse its readers with its post titles, but then rationally explains them contextually.

A good bedtime story

In this four part blog series, we’ll review an important and controversial piece of legislation you may have heard of: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as “ObamaCare.”

This week, not only did I bring home the 955 page legislation for a bit of light reading, but it so happens that a crucial piece of the bill is being ignored or delayed from being implemented by several state Governors at the moment.

Not exactly blue states

These Governors wish to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on June 28th, or some even until the November elections, before voting or implementing the item in question: the set up of an Insurance Exchange, an insurance market run by state corporations or non-profits.  The Exchange is one of the vital pieces to the Affordable Care Act instituted to bring about coverage for the 30 million+ Americans without health insurance.  Part One of the series “What’s the Deal With Ensuring the Uninsured are Insured” focuses on the delay on implementing insurance exchanges.

Now upon reading the Governors’ decisions, you might be saying, “Oh, well that sounds reasonable, I mean, why waste time and money setting up a program that may be struck down by the courts, or disbanded by executive order?”

How states view the Federal exchange program (not pictured: Kathleen Sebelius)

Why this is a big deal, and the reason it is gaining news coverage of late, is that if states choose to wait (for the aforementioned events) to implement the Health Insurance Exchange, they will have very little time to develop a comprehensive plan and infrastructure before the January 1, 2013 deadline.  If states cannot show that their exchange will be viable by January 2014 (the implementation of most of the Affordable Care Act), then the Federal Government will set up an exchange in the state as mandated by the law of the land.  This would be highly objectionable to say the least in many states.

To give readers a better sense of how the Exchange fits into the health care reform, we’ll discuss some history of health care coverage in the U.S. to show why the Exchange was enacted in the ACA.  Reading through all the arguments and looking past the politics of this contentious issue is important, and we all tend to lose sight of the main goals that health care reform seeks to address – fixing problems that are agreed upon on both sides of the aisle:

Hey! this guy found something we can agree on!

• that over 30 Million Americans lack health care, and suffer the lack of coverage or ability to pay for coverage.
• that the cost of health care for individuals and businesses has skyrocketed in the past 2 decades.
• that many insurers use unfair “business” practices that leave out the most vulnerable

How the History of US Health Care Shows the Need For an Exchange

One of the easiest ways to think about the structure of health care in the U.S. over the years is to look at development in medical technology and the struggle to match development with coverage.    Another important factor to remember is the combined effort by what I like to call “The Coverage Team”, comprised of the private insurance sector, and the Federal government; the entities who currently provide health insurance.

We really don’t have to cover too many decades in medical development; after all, the era of antibiotics really began just after the 2nd World War.  The exponential development of medical technology from the beginning of the 20th Century brought the capability to provide effective care for more people.  New technology also brought higher prices for treatments, and so a rise in private health insurers to cover these costs coincided.  By the 1920s, two points became apparent: That all Americans could theoretically be covered for basic treatments by modern medicine, and that the private sector was not going to profitably do this.

Spoiler Alert: I do not have an MBA

You don’t have to have an MBA to realize that providing insurance to the poor is not profitable and so there were clear segments of the population who from the beginning of private insurance that did not have health care.  This population had employers who did not provide insurance and couldn’t afford individual coverage or direct medical costs.   For people who worked for large employers in the 1940s and post-war period (most of the working class) health care worked very well; employers were given tax breaks to provide health care coverage, and it was easy for private insurers to cover more people, and indiscriminately.

For the gap in coverage for those outside the main workforce, the Federal Government took an initiative, enacting Medicaid and Medicare as part of the Social Security Act Amendment in 1965.  So, insurance suddenly became accessible for a great majority of the population: both the healthy and the vulnerable.  Further, costs of health care were managed by the employer system and by the Federal Government.  Between the Feds and large employers, the “Coverage team” was able to “tag team” the lack of insured (but not completely of course).

two of the biggest members of the Coverage team

So what changed?  Why has “the Coverage team” failed to keep health care costs down?

In general, the landscape of the American economy and business changed from the early 1970s to the present, a well known phenomenon. the large manufacturing employers lost jobs overseas and to improved technology and business culture vaulted away from investment in employees to investments in exponential profits.  With individuals no longer staying at one employer for most of their careers, health care coverage for the “working class” no longer was secure.  Here we have the break in the “Coverage team” where employer coverage no longer was interested in providing for employees, or employees no longer had the security health care that came with their job, as now the worker had become “disposable.”

On top of the change in business culture, the meteoric rise of the pharmaceutical industry and improved medical technology increased costs of health insurance.  Individuals and the federal government have born the brunt of the increased costs, and this is a major argument for why most people feel health care reform is necessary.

What the Health Insurance Exchange Does:

“Exchanges are intended to simplify and structure health insurance choices for individuals, families, and small businesses, while they will be the exclusive mechanism for people to apply their federal premium assistance tax credits toward the cost of insurance coverage.”

• Provides a streamlined marketplace for individuals and employers to purchase or enroll in insurance plans.
• Ensures a quality health plan for everyone by certifying health plans and providers.
• Reaches out to everyone; especially the uninsured through an extensive marketing/advertising program
• Makes choosing health plans clearer
  

  You'd be excited too if you just finished reading the Affordable Care Act

So, the Exchange was implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act to make health care accessible and affordable for those individuals who can’t afford it and to streamline the health care choice process for both individuals and small businesses.

So, why should the Governors of those states start working on implementing those exchanges?

Well, it turns out that there are many things to prepare for for an exchange to comply with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  After reviewing the steps and planning that several states who have began their Exchange programs (Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, etc.), it is quite clear that states will have a very difficult time getting the necessary planning done by the State Exchange for federal certification on Jan. 1, 2013.

States have to set up, among other things:

1. Legislation that actually passes through the government
2. An Insurance Exchange state run non-profit w/ Board and support staff
3. IT infrastructure to create a website with a huge capacity
4. A customer service hotline
5. A marketing and outreach campaign
6. Financial Management: the exchange must pay for itself by 2015
7. An eligibility web portal to certify customers
8. A system to rate and certify health plans as “Qualified Health Plans”

So you can see, that there’s a lot of work to do  (Don’t worry, there’s a lot more to implement beyond these items listed) to even just make a plan to organize the financials and operations for the exchange.  Most states have estimated that the whole process will take at least a year.  For states to pass a law, and implement a comprehensive plan that will be certified by the Fed on 1/1/2013 in 6 months (if Governors wait or the Supreme Court ruling) or 3 months (if Governors wait for the election) is almost impossible!

In order to counter Republican Presidential Candidates, President Obama says that if re-elected, he may issue an executive order to repeal Obama Care

Knowing all this should really be a wake up call, no matter what the Governors actually think about the Affordable Care Act.  Furthermore, even if the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate, the Affordable Care Act will still go into effect.  It also is looking increasingly unlikely that President Obama will be defeated in November’s election (and even smaller likelihood that Obama will repeal the PPACA).  So, states who haven’t passed their exchange legislation should pass it ASAP, and those obstinate Governors are just digging a deeper hole for themselves and their citizens; just start some sort of planning at least!

Ensuring the uninsured  are insured starts with getting the insurance exchanges set up.  Otherwise, states will be left with the federal government actually entrenching on their rights (by setting up federally mandated exchanges).

Stay tuned for Parts 2, 3, and 4 soon!

Your Faithful Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources and further reads:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act ‘‘PPACA’’; Public Law 111–148 (you know you want to read it).

Alan Weil, Adi Shafir, and Sarabeth Zemel, Health Insurance Exchange Basics, 2011 (Portland, ME:

National Academy for State Health Policy)

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

http://nchc.org/ (National Coalition on Health Care)

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=635661

http://www.newsmax.com/US/health-care-reform/2012/03/01/id/431126

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/health/policy/a-wait-and-see-approach-for-states-on-insurance-exchanges.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=health%20exchange&st=cse

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/wait-and-see-approach-to-health-exchanges-may-haunt-states/

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

http://www.dhmh.maryland.gov/healthreform/exchange/SitePages/reports.aspx

http://www.cms.gov/home/rsds.asp

What’s the Deal With America’s Decision on Syria?

Hello All!

Sellout! (not really)

Welcome to another edition of “What’s the Deal”, the blog that doesn’t change its ideology based on economic interests (unless, you know, someone wants to make early retirement for me a reality).

In this week’s blog entry, we’ll discuss what the U.S.’s role is in Syria and how the American Government  could potentially respond as the situation develops.  We’ll also look at how American relationships with Dictators past and present have evolved (or not).

Now, I won’t give you a comprehensive day by day account of the current events in Homs or Damascus; the horrible siege and brutality by the Assad Govt. on his own people is shown across the news on a daily basis.  A simple summary of the Assad Regime’s actions and the international community’s response is sufficient for this post.  My blog post on the Syrian uprising from June explains the history of the country, the rise of the Assad regime, and the revolution from February 2011.

United Condemnations

The bloody year-long crackdown on protesting Syrians by the Assad regime and his army has caused several countries in the West, Arab League, and nearly unanimously in the UN to condemn the regime.  Assad himself has only relented in a “way too late” fashion by suggesting that there could be a reformed constitution and “elections” in a handover of power.  This suggestion is seen as a joke at this point, considering the atrocities he’s committed and the economic sanctions by nearly every country (except China, Russia, Iraq, and Iran) that are throttling the Syrian economy. The vote on the new constitution (that limits a presidential term to two 7 year terms) this Sunday is being boycotted by the opposition.

While the UN has failed to convince Russia and China to join the UN Security Council condemnation party, more calls for the U.S. or some international agency to intervene to defend the rebels in Syria are growing louder.  As the siege on Homs continues into its sixth day and since a prominent American journalist and French photographer have died from the violence, increased pressure has mounted on someone to do something.

So, that’s the question: Will the U.S. lead a military intervention to oust a regime that has killed more than 5,000 people since last March?

You see, Syria is actually a different country than Libya

So many analyses have arisen about this possibility, including no more than 3 questions during the Wednesday 2/22/2012 White House Press conference for White House Press Sec. Jay Carney over the potential of a “Libya Like” intervention in Syria to get rid of Bashar Al-Assad. Carney answered in perfect circumlocutive fashion (because he’s not the President) citing different conditions for every country, time, dictator, economics, culture, etc…  Good points, Jay.

How do you solve a problem like Basha-ar??

And, a nice segway to an explanation of former American involvements in ousting dictators, or keeping dictators, or producing dictators.  By reviewing some former involvements (but not all, because hey, it’s not a book) we can understand the predicament faced by President Obama (as Commander in Chief) and the UN on what to do about Syria.

Keeping Business Interests

U.S. intervention abroad after the Spanish American War and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine has had a primary business or economic interest.  These efforts often displaced democratic movements with authoritarian governments that allowed American business monopolies to continue to exploit foreign resources and reap the benefits.  Direct, clandestine campaigns in this regard took place in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama.  These campaigns (that sometimes involved US troops) kept the US business monopoly in power in these “banana republics.”

US businesses Dole-d out autocracies

Indirectly, the U.S. has caused the rise of dictatorship in keeping its own economic interest in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.  Popular anti-US or anti-trading policies are easier to keep down with a American-friendly General or dictator, and so the U.S. was happy to have assisted in the rise of a megalomaniac as long as they kept U.S. commercial interests as their best interest. Democracy and human rights have not been the first priority: As F.D.R. said of the brutal Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo, “he may be an S.O.B., but he’s our S.O.B.”

In some cases, U.S. intervention to keep a dictator involved helping the economic interests of its allies along with its own.  The best example of this is in Iran, where in 1953, a CIA led coup of popularly elected Mohammad Mossadegh re-instated the exiled Reza Shah and prevented a nationalization of Iranian oil fields and refineries which had been owned by the British for decades.  In another (but more complicated) example: The initial presence of American “advisors” and later troops in Vietnam was undertaken to protect the dying French colonial and economic presence in Indochina presiding over rubber and other resources.  The installation of Ngo Dinh Diem as the Dictator showed the American intent of keeping South Vietnam’s government in the best interests of the West.

He wants to nationalize Iranian oil? Detain him! He must be a communist!

An Ideological Alibi

In halting democratic revolutions, elections, or policies and helping replace them with business friendly autocrats, the U.S. has shown a consistent priority for economic interests over the ideological alibi for their foreign meddling.  The justification for U.S. involvement has varied from country to country, but often U.S. intervention has been framed as necessary to *prevent the “dangerous” spread of communism, *spread a higher culture to a downtrodden backwards people (read: Non-Christians), and to *defend the U.S. national security.

All of these alibis for intervention and the resulting dictatorships were generally accepted as measures of high priority for the U.S.  How would they have reacted if they knew the U.S. was halting the spread of democratic movements if they were told it was purely for economic interests?

trading business for democracy

So, American relationships with dictators  in these examples has been, well, pretty friendly.  The only times things have turned ugly is when the dictator decides not to directly support American business.  These are some examples, but they don’t exactly relate as well to the Syrian predicament as these next three, more recent examples do.

“To Help the People”

The title of this section may suggest another alibi similar to the ones I mentioned earlier.  These next three (more recent) examples, however, show that the U.S.’s main interest was in stopping or removing a dictator because of human rights abuses (among other reasons).

• In the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton Administration joined the UN and NATO forces in  preventing a continued ethnic genocide in a civil war like atmosphere, carried out by both sides, but more vigorously by Serbian dictator Slobadon Milosevic.
• The 2003 Iraq invasion had many, many reasons beyond the humanitarian effort, but it is true that President Bush wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who had killed millions of Kurds and dissenters in the 1990s.  The method to accomplish this of course was flawed, detailed in my previous blog post on the Iraq War.
• The assistance of NATO (with the U.S.) to the Libyan militia groups last year helped beat Moammar Qaddafi’s forces and forced him into exile and eventual capture.
  

  They needed an extra hand

In each of these examples, the primary motive of the U.S. military action was to remove a dictator, and begin the process of democratization.  It is from here that these examples differ in the American approach, and the most important factor that President Obama and his Joint Chiefs of Staff should consider: who to assist in ousting the dictator/promoting independence and the immediate and long term effects of removing a dictator.

Making the Decision

Choosing a full-scale invasion with only 2 major allied force involvement and no thought out plan for post-dictatorship governance or transition (the Iraq war) seems to be out of favor for Mr. Obama.  Obama campaigned for President against this strategy which led to the 9 year war.  The President recognizes the consequences of creating a power vacuum in multi-ethnic countries who have a history of ethnic conflict or discrimination.  Further, President Obama knows an international decision is much more powerful and won’t isolate the U.S.

Supporting a known or listed terror group like NATO and the Clinton administration did in Kosovo in 2000 (supported the Kosovo Liberation Army) may not be a wise decision either.  this may be the predicament that Mr. Obama runs into if he decides to send arms or back directly the opposition movement, a group comprised of the Free Syrian Army, revolutionaries, possible members of terror groups, and others.  Direct support for this group may be a backwards step in the “War on Terror.”  Further, the opposition is deeply fractious and divided: How would they handle power sharing?

Imposing a no-fly-zone like NATO did in Libya and Kosovo is not an effective strategy in Syria because Assad’s forces have not used an air force to put down the uprising.  While the Free Syrian Army says they have Alawites (the Shia islamic sect that Assad is part of) and won’t impose any recriminations if they succeed in the revolution, it is hard to take them at their word.  We’ve seen these types of retaliatory actions taken against former Qaddafi (aka Gaddafi, Ghaddafi, Khadaffi, Quaddafy) sympathizers and immigrants in Libya.

Sympathizing w/ Qaddafi turned out to be cancerous..... too soon?

A more diverse ethnic background in Syria (Kurds, Assyrians, Arabs, Alawites, Shiites, Sunnis, and Christians) makes it more difficult to give power to one group (such as the Sunnni majority).  President Obama is facing a similar history of ethnic strife in Syria that President Bush did in Iraq, and of course does not want to set off a bloody civil war that might deadlock the country if Assad is taken out.  Meanwhile, the siege of Homs and the massacres at Dayr az-Zawr, Baniyas, and Aleppo have recalled to mind the horror of Benghazi in Libya, the impetus for NAtO supporting the Libyan rebels.

So these are the circumstances which face the President and the UN today: they are facing what reporters are calling their “Benghazi moment.”

Clearly, any economic attachment to Assad has gone out the window, as both Sec. of State Clinton and President Obama have condemned Assad along with the accompanying economic sanctions.  America’s relationship to this dictator has long passed the commercial interest barrier.  But, consider this: there are those who would favor a war because certain companies stand to gain significantly, like defense contractors.  If this sounds familiar, its because the same defense contractors in the Iraq war were given no-bid contracts because they had a hand in Government.  Some say the same conspiracy existed for the Libya campaign and would for Syria as well.  Here we arrive at the intersection of the economic priority in dealing with dictators.  American track record of working with dictators is pretty poor, and so it makes sense that these theories would look to that conclusion.  An interesting thought to remember, but conspiracies aside, the effort here as in Libya is for the most part humanitarian.

So what should President Obama do?  We here at “What’s the Deal?” believe that the President should consider the examples we’ve mentioned here today and especially keep in mind the ethnic and religious differences that exist and seriously work with both NATO, the UN and the Arab League in pursuing any action, or inaction.  The isolationist stance in the U.S. is growing, and the President would very much like to avoid another conflict as we are winding down other operations (oh yea, I almost forgot about Afghanistan).  So perhaps the non-aggression is the best method.

As the “Friends of Syria” met last Friday to condemn the regime, any consensus on action is non-existent.  It seems that any action or decision is very difficult and is a perfect case of “pick your poison.”

Comin around to save the mutha-f'n day yea

An interesting component of this situation is the question: Why just Syria?  There are several countries around the world that are suffering under long term brutal repression of a dictator (see Zimbabwe, Sudan, Bahrain, and arguably Saudi Arabia).  If America is going to be the world police, we need to address all of the repression (Don’t we?).

Just some thoughts to consider as the world (w/o China + Russia) attempts to force Assad out of power diplomatically, and give aid to suffering Syrians.

Until the next serious panel discussion,

Your Faithful Historian,

Eric G. Prileson

Sources and further reads:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/17/147045999/dealing-with-dictators-the-u-s-playbook-varies

Overthrow! America’s Imperial Century, by Stephen Kinzer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17168730

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16912756

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june12/syria2_02-24.html

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/25/147406019/other-peoples-atrocities-none-of-our-business

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Syria&st=cse

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/25/147384716/clinton-steps-up-calls-for-a-halt-to-violence-in-syria