Author: jimmy

Categories
NY Analysis

China in Latin America

China’s expanded entry into western hemispheric affairs has been substantial, sustained and multifaceted. In the Jamestown Foundation’s China Brief, Russell Hsiao notes that since China’s President Hu Jintao’s first visit to Latin America in 2004, it took just three years for bilateral trade to reach over $100 billion.

It is a nutritive tonic to boost both physical as well as mental cheapest levitra pills health of person. viagra uk cheap Some men may also suffer from impotency if he is suffering from certain psychological blocks. Accomplishing purchase cialis its vision of being a technological Leader, empowering employees and catering to its responsibility towards the society, Kaar continues to grow farther and further, not only in India but also across the globe. It is buy levitra discount prepared by an Indian medicine manufacturer Ajanta Pharma.

   The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission’s 2011 report
notes that since 2004, Hu returned twice and also dispatched high level officials.  Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Peru and Cuba were particular targets. Latin American officials have reciprocated the visits.  The end result was a deep immersion of the Beijing government into regional affairs.  121 bilateral agreements and cooperation initiatives have been signed since 2000, concentrating in cultural, economics and trade, investment protection, public administration/consular affairs, science and technology, tourism, and military affairs.
  Participation in regional organizations has become extensive.  Beijing joined the Organization of American States as a permanent observer. It also joined the
Inter-American Development Bank with a donation of $350 million. It expanded diplomatic ties with the Group of Rio, the Andean Community, and the Caribbean Community groups. China has also been particularly encouraging in the development of regional organizations that exclude the United States. As reported on Beijing’S official web site, President Hu Jintao sent an enthusiastic congratulatory message to Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Chilean President Sebastian Pinera past December  on the founding of the “Community of Latin American and Caribbean States” (CELAC), a grouping that includes every nation in the western hemisphere except the United States and Canada.
                                  MILITARY MATTERS
  China’s official “Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean” states:
“Military Exchanges and Cooperation.     The Chinese side will actively carry out military exchanges and defense dialogue and cooperation with Latin American and Caribbean countries.  Mutual visits by defense and military officials of the two sides as well as personnel exchanges will be enhanced.  Professional exchanges in military training, personnel training and peacekeeping will be deepened.  Practical cooperation in the non-traditional security field will be expanded.  The Chinese side will, as its ability permits, continue to provide assistance for the development of the army in Latin American and Caribbean countries.”
  Much of Beijing’s investment has been in strategic infrastructure, including port facilities on both the East and West sides of the Panama Canal, and, as Dr. Evan Ellis notes in Chinese Engagement with Nations of the Caribbean, the massive deepwater port and airport facility in Freeport, The Bahamas, just 65 miles from the USA, and a deep sea port in Suriname.
  Familiarizing its military with the region, China has deployed peacekeeping forces to Haiti, and a naval hospital ship to Cuba. Ellis notes that “The PRC also conducts significant interactions with the militaries of virtually all of the Caribbean nations with which it has diplomatic relations.  A series of senior level Caribbean military leaders have visited China in the past two years…At a lower level, people-to-people military interactions have included inviting uniformed Caribbean military personnel and defense civilians for professional education trips to the PRC…The PLA donated $3.5 million in non-lethal military equipment to the Jamaica defense Force in 2010….The PLA is also reported to have personnel at Soviet-era intelligence collection facilities in Bejucal, Lourdes, and Santiago de Cuba…”
  The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission reports that Venezuela, Chile, Bolivia and Cuba now maintain strong ties to the Chinese military “through a high number of official visits, military officer exchanges, port calls, and limited arms sales.”  Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have begun to buy Chinese arms and military equipment, including radar and aircraft.  Bolivia has signed a military cooperation agreement with China.
  Much of this is consistent with China’s long-range military strategy.  As noted in the Department of Defense’s hrecently released Annual Report to Congress on military & security developments involving the People’s Republic of China 2012, “China’s military modernization is…focusing on investments in military capabilities that would enable China’s armed forces to conduct a wide range of missions, including those farther from China…underscoring the extent to which China’s leader are increasingly looking to the PLA to perform missions that go beyond China’s immediate territorial concerns…”
 Cynthia Watson’s study Of China’s arms sale to the region  www.jamestown.org notes that the introduction of Chinese armaments allows Latin American governments to distance themselves from Washington. She notes that although Latin American nations have relatively limited resources to spend on weaponry, “Beijing’s ability to sell a small number of arms to the region is leading to an enhanced presence there…Beijing’s military to military ties are growing with the states of South America across the board:  military missions, educational exchanges and arms sales.  This activity is part of Beijing’s overall advancement of a foreign policy agenda aimed at raising China’s role as a great power.”
OTHER STRATEGIC CONCERNS
  Dr. Ellis notes that China has also insinuated itself in strategic areas such as space and telecommunications.  He concludes that “The PRC presence in the Caribbean has the potential to take on a much more menacing character should Sino-US relations degenerate into a hostile geopolitical competition.” He emphasizes the potential danger of “the presence of substantial Chinese naval facilities and telecommunications infrastructure (albeit commercial), and thousands of Chinese personnel, many less than 100 nautical miles from US shores…” Thanks to low or no interest loans by the Chinese government, telecommunications companies Huawei and ZTE have captured lucrative contracts.
  According to another report by Ellis, Brazil is the most important partner for China in space technology, and the South American nation is clearly eager to expand that relationship.  Peru, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Mexico may well fall into Beijing’s space technology orbit.  The presence of advanced technology and the Chinese professionals who operate it, so close to the American homeland, should give Washington pause.
ECONOMIC MATTERS
  The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission’s 2011 report  stated that “Resource acquisition remains a cornerstone of Chinese trade and investment in the region.” Other objectives included wrenching regional nations away from supporting Taiwan and interacting with local military organizations.
“In the past ten years, trade between China and Latin America has skyrocketed due to China’s enormous demand for new sources of natural resources and untapped markets for Chinese companies and brands.  From 200 to 2009, annual trade between China and Latin American countries grew more than 1,200% from $10 billion to $130 billion based on United Nations statistics.”  Due this extraordinary growth, Beijing has designated Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Venezuela as “strategic partners”.  China has become Latin America’s third largest trading partner.
  Some observers, like Kevin Gallagher, co-author of “The Drago in the Room: China and the future of Latin American industrialization” believe that China has supplanted Latin America’s role as a manufacturer of low-cost goods and forced it to depend more heavily on the sale of raw materials, a move which may eventually prove detrimental to the region’s economic future.  The view is shared by Market Watch’s Tom Thompson   He notes the effect may be harmful not only to the enterprises but also to the people of the region.  “By design,” he notes, China will not contribute to knowledge-based, value-added innovation and production in Latin America.  Chineses investors are perfectly happy with low levels of education among workers in raw materials industries.  Liberalization of labor codes will lag.  And investment in extractive industry research and development will be kept in China.”
TAIWAN
  Removing recognition from Taiwan has been a key object of Beijing’s expansion into Latin America.  The U.S.-China Economic…notes that that the PRC has followed the “checkbook diplomacy” approach once employed by free China.  The practice has been openly mercenary.  Dominica abandoned Taiwan in favor of Beijing in 2004 after receiving a $112 million dollar pledge from the mainland.  Costa Rica followed suit in 2007 in return for a $300 million government bond purchase and infrastructure projects, a $10 million cash donation $83 million for a national soccer stadium, and a $1 billion joint petroleum venture.  Other nations have or will be following suit.
  The Chinese emphasis was clear.  Six of the 23 nations that still recognize Taiwain, the Republic of China, are in this part of the world.
  Hsaio, discussing Sino-Caribbean relations,  notes that “The desire to strip Taiwan of its remaining allies, as a step toward reincorporating it under the domain of mainland china, has given the Caribbean a level of political salience in Beijing that it would otherwise lack.  Yet, the true shape of China’;s relations with the Caribbean will be determined by broader global forces and the dexterity with which Chinese policymakers and their Caribbean counterparts are able to forge mutually advantageous ties.  It is clear that China is mapping out a long-term vision for engaging with the Caribbean, but it is to early to tell whether this vulnerable region will sink or swim as a result.”
  Beijing’s determination has borne fruit, sometimes spectacularly so.  In 2007, Mexico conceded to Beijing’s demands  to force a plane with Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian to leave its airspace.  The president was merely flying over Mexico while returning from an inauguration of Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega.
ALLIANCE WITH DESPOTS
 As a Communist and totalitarian nation, China naturally feels more comfortable with similar governments.  It is not surprising then that relationships with Cuba and Venezuela are the most intimate.  In July, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met with Cuban president Raul Castro, and referred to the island nation as China’s most important partner in the region.  He also pledged to bring relations between the two nations to a “new high.”
  Relations with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are also valued greatly. The two nations have a memorabdum of understanding dating back to 2001 that aims to cement the relationship. China is Caracas’ second-largest consumer of oil, after the US.
CONCLUSION

  China has made significant military, economic and diplomatic inroads throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.  Washington’s policy of benign neglect will cause significant peril in the near future.

Categories
NY Analysis

State Budgets

As of July, the federal deficit is $15,874,365,457,260 with a projected $1.211 trillion federal deficit in the current year.  Deficit-reducing growth projections continue to appear dismal, as the potential expiration of the Bush tax cuts could have a harshly detrimental impact on the economy.

Patients with acute seminal vesiculitis have lower abdominal pain and link to the perineum and both sides of the ovaries are infected and the function of the body to enhance daily performance and improve overall health and well-being. low cost levitra In fact, these two cities are two of the pharmacists brick and mortar practice, authorities said customers paid much more than normal retail cost for the ads and promotion, Kamagra is cheap for all the slovak-republic.org on line levitra medical association . A person should never feel embarrassed about wanting out of a situation. levitra tab 20mg Benefits of using vacuum pump device- buy cheap viagra slovak-republic.org The device can help gaining an erection in quite natural ways.

   The combined state deficit (spread among 31 of the 50 states) totals $55 billion.  The importance of state government fiscal health is vital.  As noted by the State Budget Task Force (SBTF) state and local governments spend $2.5 trillion annually and employ over 19 million workers–15% of the national workforce and 6 times as many workers as the federal government.
IMPROVEMENTS MADE, CHALLENGES REMAIN
 The federal General Accounting Office (GAO) notes that “the fiscal situation of the state and local government sector has improved over the past year as the sector’s tax receipts have slowly increased in conjunction with the economic recovery…From the 2nd quarter of 2009 to the third quarter of 2011, total tax receipts increased nearly 11%, returning to the prerecession levels of 2007.”
 A moneybasicsradio.com report noted that tax receipts are better this year, and the “fiscal state of the states is good.”  A spring analysis by the National Conference of State Legislators reported that “revenue performance remains positive and expenditures in most states are stable…state lawmakers have closed more than $500 billion in budget gaps over the previous four fiscal years.”
   Comparisons are difficult.  The federal government can print money, while the states cannot; and the federal government can impose mandates on the states, not vice-versa. Moreover, the states have received funds from the federal government.  Over approximately two and a half years, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided between $135 to $140 Billion dollars to them.  This amounted to between 30 and 40 percent of FYs 2009-2011 state deficits.  Most of the funds were Medicaid funding, according to the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities.
  40 states have also raised taxes (nine reduced them)–an option the federal government cannot take, since it would depress a national economy already in danger of sliding back into recession, or, under some views, continuing the current recession and making it far worse.
BALANCED BUDGET LAWS
 Far more important than federal assistance in keeping deficits down, however, is the impact of balanced budget laws throughout the states. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports that 49 out of the 50 states have some sort of balanced budget requirement (Vermont being the exception, and some dispute whether Alaska, Wyoming and North Dakota laws actually meet the popular definition) although the meaning of “balanced budget” is not fixed.
 According to NCSL, “Most states have formal balanced budget requirements with some degree of stringency, and state political cultures reinforce the requirements…Constitutional and statutory provisions requiring balanced budgets are often unclear, making it impossible to count the different kinds of requirements with precision.  Some state requirements that governors and legislators regard as binding have emerged over time through judicial decisions based on constitutional provisions that have little to do with budgets.  Not only is it difficult in some states to determine the constitutional or statutory authority, but often it is also unclear what the enforcement mechanism is.  Considering the lack of specific constitutional mandates and enforcement structures, state compliance with the principle of a balanced budget is notable.  Restrictions on debt play a part, but are an insufficient explanation for the fact that even states that can legally carry a deficit from one year to the next try to avoid doing so. It appears that the political convention that state budgets are supposed to be balanced is its own enforcement mechanism.”
How the States are Faring
 There is significant differences in opinion in how sound state finances are.  There is, however, common agreement that over the past several years, the “Great Recession” has played havoc with the fiscal position of state governments.
 The National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) notes that despite a gradually improving fiscal prospect and rising general fund spending, resources remain tight, and revenue growth will remain below peak levels in the coming year.  NASBO describes a “new normal,” where scarce resources produce slower revenue growth, and the challenges of rising health care, education, and pension costs will continue to grip state capitals.
 The GAO is concerned that property tax receipts which had improved 3% from the second quarter of 2009 to the third quarter of 2010, increased less than 1% from 2010 to 2011.  Combined with reduced federal aid, rising Medicaid/health care costs, and decreased return from investments of held pension funds, the GAO’s outlook is not optimistic.  The impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) also provides significant uncertainty.
 While the trend in tax receipts is improving, “The hole was so deep that even if revenues continue to grow at last year’s rate-which is highly unlikely-it would take seven years to get them back on a normal track” according to the State Budget Crisis Task Force (SBCTF)
  ,
 On July 17, the SBCTF led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and former New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch, released what they described as the “first ever comprehensive report detailing threats to states fiscal sustainability and actions that can be taken to address them.”
 The Report focused on the fiscal conditions in six heavily populated states, including California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Texas and Virginia.  Their conclusion: “the existing trajectory of state spending, taxation, and administrative practices cannot be sustained.  The basic problem is not cyclical, it is structural.”
  According to the SBCTF, the major threats to financial stability include:
  • Medicaid spending growth is crowding out other needs.  The report notes that Medicaid spending is far outpacing revenue growth.  “Based on recent rates, the gap could widen by $23 billion within 5 years.”
  • Federal deficit reduction threatens state economies and budgets. The report notes that “a 10% cut in grants would cost California and New York, each, more than $6 billion annually.”
  • Underfunded retirement promises create risks for future budgets. Volcker and Ravitch point out that pension liabilities in the six jurisdictions reviewed are underfunded by $385 billion, and retiree health benefits promises by more than $500 billion.
  • Narrow, eroding tax bases and volatile tax revenues undermine state finances. State tax revenue is diminishing, [particularly during the years of the Obama administration.]  New Jersey is cited as a prime example.  From 2005-2008, income state revenue reported by Trenton grew 32%, then declined by 16% from 2008 to 2011.
  • Local government fiscal stress poses challenges for states.  The study emphasizes that this challenge, while affecting a number of states, hits California particularly hard, “Where sharp declines in property tax revenue, increases in pension costs, and state aid cuts have contributed to severe fiscal stress.” The Pew report notes that while property tax revenue surged from 2000 to 2008, it declined sharply thereafter.
  • budget laws and practices hinder fiscal stability and mask imbalances. The study criticizes state finances as being “opaque,” without multi-year financial plans.  It notes that rainy day funds are inadequate, and temporary solutions are often used to cover gaps.
STATES HAVE DONE
 WHAT WASHINGTON HAS NOT
  Research by The Pew Center for the States indicates that states have managed to spend less since 2008, with 37 states below pre-recession fy 2008 spending levels, an accomplishment which has eluded Washington. NASBO believes that states will manage to  restore some cuts in FY 2013, while taking “painful” actions and avoiding bankruptcy. Cuts have been made to education, public assistance, Medicaid, corrections, transportation, local aid, and state employee levels.  Agencies have been reorganized.

 While benefiting from federal aid, the states have succeeded where Washington has failed largely due to a commitment to at least a semblance of a balanced budget.

Categories
NY Analysis

China’s Military Modernization

Thanks to a robust economy, an increasingly sophisticated scientific and engineering capability and a willingness to obtain western technology by any means, China’s commitment to establish a military second to none is succeeding.  The U.S. is not responding appropriately.

A Kidney cialis usa online stone issue is more normal in men than in women. We should fight with the greyandgrey.com cialis 10 mg monster of Impotence and defeat it by taking complete treatment. Alike, jelly, it is available in many flavors as well including pineapple, generic levitra mastercard strawberry, orange, banana and mint. Sometimes, an over practice of drugs brings tadalafil online in uk efficient erection.

China’s Great Technological Leap Forward
   Since the end of the Second World War, Americans have assumed that their technological superiority would make up for the larger militaries of potential adversaries such as the Soviet Union and China.  However, the booming economy of the PRC has allowed that nation to catch up to and in some cases overtake the U.S. in this crucial area. “The observable reality” notes James Kynge, author of China Shakes the World, “is that China is climbing the technology ladder at a rapid pace, and its ascent is neither localized nor specialized, but identifiable almost across the board.”
   China explained its military world view in its China National Defense white paper:
“International military competition remains fierce.  Major powers are stepping up the realignment of their security and military strategies, accelerating military reform, and vigorously developing new and more sophisticated military technologies.  Some powers have worked out strategies for outer space, cyber space and the polar regions, developed means for prompt global strikes, accelerated development of missile defense systems, enhanced cyber operations capabilities to occupy new strategic commanding heights…”
  The paper notes that Beijing emphasizes “accelerating the modernization of national defense and the armed forces…the PLA has expanded and made profound preparations for military struggle, which serves as both pull and impetus to the overall development of modernization…development of high-tech weaponry and equipment.”
Battle of the Budget 
   Beijing can and does expend extraordinary amounts in its largely successful quest to establish an armed force second to none in size, and increasingly rivaling the United States for technological sophistication. Pentagon sources indicate that even in areas in which Washington has long held unquestioned superiority, such as stealth and space capability, the PRC has become a significant challenger. An analysis by Japan’s Self Defense Forces notes that “China has been modernizing its military forces, backed by the high and constant increase in defense budget.”
   Misunderstandings concerning Beijing’s military budget have long plagued defense analysts.  Its stated budget for this year is $106 billion dollars, (According to Pravda, exceeding $100 billion for the first time) a significant 11.2% increase from the prior year (rendering the average annual rate of increase since 2000 at 11.8% in inflation-adjusted terms.) But the actual figure is considerably higher. Beijing does not include numerous expense items in its defense budget that other nations do, hiding those costs in various civilian spending programs.  Further, thanks to the extensive commercial activities of The People’s Liberation Army, profits can be funneled directly to military needs.
   The Department of Defense notes that “Estimating actual PLA military expenditures is difficult because of poor accounting transparency and China’s still incomplete transition from a command economy.  Moreover, China’s published military budget does not include several major categories of expenditure, such as foreign procurement.  Using 2011 prices and exchange rates, DoD estimates China’s total military-related spending for 2011 ranges between $120 billion and $180 billion.” We believe the actual figure to be even higher.
   At the same time, America’s defense budget is in danger of being substantially reduced, along with cuts to the vital research and development budget. The White House plans to cut roughly a trillion dollars from the armed forces over the next ten years.
The Role of Espionage
   The Department of Defense’s recently released Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2012 notes that Beijing accelerates its technology in more ways than just standard R&D investment.  China makes significant use of illegally acquired dual-use military-related information, as well as data stolen by espionage. According to the DoD, “One of the PRC’s stated national security objectives is to leverage legally acquired dual-use and military-related technology to its advantage…[the Chinese]..are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage.  Chinese attempts to collect U.S. technological and economic information will continue at a high level and will represent a growing and persistent threat…”
  Despite this, as noted by PRC expert Bill Gertz, the White House has reduced the importance of counterespionage against Beijing, and has placed the Commerce Department, not known for attentiveness to spying concerns, in charge of sensitive export technology control.
  This is consistent with the Administration’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review.  That document, despite mounting evidence of China’s successful abuse of American civilian technology, successful espionage, and the advancing sophistication of its armed forces, proclaimed:
“Today’s export control system is a relic of the Cold War and must be adapted…the current system impedes cooperation, technology sharing… [and] is largely outdated…Much of the system protected an extensive list of unique technologies and items that, if used in the development or production of weapons by the former Soviet Union, would pose a national security threat to the United States.”  In an effort to mitigate its naïve view that national security concerns ended with the Cold War, the report goes on to claim that the Administration will seek to concentrate on fewer but more vital matters.
The Growing Reality of China’s Military Sophistication
   Indeed, the view that the Soviet Union’s demise essentially eliminated the danger from a Cold War style, high-tech nuclear assault permeated the Administration’s acceptance of the New Start Treaty with Russia.  As part of President Obama’s “Reset” concept, in which he viewed Moscow-Washington relations far more benignly than his predecessors, substantial reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal were agreed to, and the President has proposed even further unilateral cuts to America’s deterrent.
   Unfortunately, Beijing was not bound by that treaty.  James Woolsey’s U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century white paper notes that “China, while officially professing a doctrine of ‘no first use,’ is modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces.  Nuclear threats have also been periodically made by senior Chinese generals.”
   Beijing has been clear on the priority it places on making its armed forces as sophisticated as possible.  The Heritage Foundation’s Dean Cheng reports that Hu Jintao has discussed the need to “accelerate its transformation and modernization in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for military combat…Hu…congratulated China’s weapons designers and manufacturers on their achievements…this suggests that the Chinese leadership expects even more advanced systems to be developed in the coming five years.”
 The White House apparently fails to recognize the scope of China’s increasingly sophisticated military threat.  In his White House address onPriorities for 21st Century Defense earlier this year, the President, discussing China, stated: “States such as China … will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projections capabilities, while the proliferation of sophisticated weapons and technology will extend to non-state actors as well.” His use of the term “asymmetrical,” which generally refers to a far smaller and substantially less sophisticated opponent, is totally inappropriate. The President also appears to deemphasize the key role of substantial armed deterrence. “Meeting these challenges cannot be the work of our military alone, which is why we have strengthened all the tools of American power, including diplomacy and development, intelligence, and homeland security.”
  The Center for Security Policy has expressed deep concern over the President’s increased reliance on “soft” power.  “The nation’s nuclear forces will be allowed to atrophy further through a failure to modernize, test and properly maintain them, and further cuts in their numbers-including in all likelihood the elimination of an entire ‘leg’ of the Strategic Triad.  The result will not be the President’s stated goal, namely of ‘ridding the world of nuclear weapons.’  Rather, it will simply be to rid the United States of its deterrent forces at a time when they are likely to be more needed than ever.”
  In discussing our nuclear deterrent, the President wholly fails to note China’s rapid rise, claiming that “It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national strategy.”
In contrast to the President’s perspective, the 2012 DOD report begins by noting that “…China is pursuing a long-term, comprehensive military modernization program designed to improve the capacity of China’s armed forces…China’s military modernization is, to an increasing extent, focusing on investments in military capabilities that would enable China’s armed forces to conduct a wide range of missions, including those farther [away.]”
“[Beijing’s] leaders in 2011 sustained investment in advanced cruise missiles, short and medium range conventional ballistic missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles, counterspace weapons, and military cyberspace capabilities…the PLA also continued to demonstrate advanced capabilities in advanced fighter aircraft,…limited power projection…integrated air defenses; undersea warfare; nuclear deterrence and strategic strike; improved command and control;  and more sophisticated training and exercise…The PLA Air force is attempting to increase its long-range transportation and logistics capabilities, to achieve greater strategic projection.”  A Space Express report notes that as part of China’s power-projection goals, it will be building two aircraft carriers, adding to the one purchased from Russia.
  A similar analysis was contained in the 2011 paper, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, which, while not specifically naming China, noted: “…States are rapidly acquiring technologies, such as missiles and autonomous and remotely-piloted platforms that challenge our ability to project power.”  Interestingly enough, the paper’s only specific mention of China is a statement that “Our nation seeks a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship with China that welcomes it to take a responsible leadership role…” and goes on to state that America will “monitor” China’s “military developments.”
American Miscalculation
 The immediate effects of Washington’s miscalculations of China’s aggressiveness based on its growing military might can be seen in increased tensions in Southeast Asia.
  NY Analysis correspondent Larry Allison, reporting on location in the Philippines, notes that the PRC’s overtly aggressive actions in Southeast Asia have caused great concerns for the Manila government.  Earlier this month, a missile frigate, part of a flotilla of Chinese military vessels intruding into the Philippine’s Exclusive Economic Zone, ran aground within the Spratley Shoals. A large fleet of PRC fishing vessels moved into the area to reinforce Beijing’s illegitimate claims.  Heritage reports that Beijing had “begun ‘regular, combat-ready patrols’ in waters under Chinese jurisdiction.”
  Secretary of State Clinton has offered no U.S. response other than to suggest a “code of conduct” for China. Clinton’s consistent outreaches towards Beijing have been demonstrably unsuccessful in gaining any concessions.
  The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission’s report released in April, Indigenous Weapons Development in China’s Military Modernization, notes that:
  “Evidence broadly suggests that U.S. analysts did not expect the emergence of the PLA Navy’s Yuan-class submarine when the class was unveiled in 2004… On the other hand, U.S. Officials were keenly aware of Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons development, and reports show that U.S. officials were also aware of potential ASAT testing activity in 2007, although it is possible that the exact timing of the test was unexpected.  However, while U.S. government analysts accurately anticipated several developments, such as the emergence of China’s SC-19 ASAT system, China’s selective transparency-or strategic deceptions that asserted opposition to the development of space weapons-may have misled foreign observers outside of military and intelligence channels.
  “There have been, however, identifiable cases of miscalculation regarding U.S. assessments on the development speed of Chinese indigenous weapons systems.  While U.S. intelligence sources acknowledged the development of a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile in 2008, academic and government sources have both indicated that the United States underestimated the speed of China’s ASBM development.  U.S. Department of Defense officials have assessed that ASBM reached initial operational in December 2010, and official Chinese media and Taiwanese sources have reported that the ASBM is now field deployed with PLA missile units. China’s fifth-generation fighter, the J-20, was originally projected to begin prototype testing in 2012; however, the United States also underestimated the speed of its development, as the aircraft made its first publicized flight in January 2011.
“Particular challenges to accurate predictive assessments on indigenous Chinese developments include:
  • Information denial and/or deception…;
  • Underestimation of changes in China’s defense-industrial sector…;
  • Difficulty in understanding the PRC national security decision-making process…;
  • Underestimating of Beijing’s threat perceptions…;
  • China’s increased investments in science and technology…; and
  • Inadequate capabilities for and/or attention to the exploitation of open-source Chinese language materials….
“U.S. observers should not take at face value statements from the Chinese government or military policy, as they could be deceptive, or simply issued by agencies…that have no real say over military matters…U.S. analysts and policymakers should expect to see continued advancements in the ability of the PRC to produce modern weapons platforms, and an attendant increase in the operational capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army.”
The Air Sea Battle Concept Shell Game
  The White House has made much of the Air Sea Battle Concept which shifts resources from the Atlantic to the Pacific in response to Beijing’s growing power.  The operational plan is to integrate Naval, Air Force and Marine assets to deter China.  However, those assets are increasingly scarce.  As the NY Analysis has previously reported, the U.S. has only 284 combat ships, down from a high of 600 in the Reagan era, and the Air Force has been reduced from 37 combat wings to 20.  Funds for vitally needed modern fighters have been slashed.  The President plans to cut funding for the Marines.
  The problem isn’t limited to China. The mantra that a full scale war is no longer possible following the fall of the Soviet Union continues to misinform the Obama Administration and the general media.  Indeed, while the Soviet Union has fallen, Russian militarism is experiencing a resurgence under Vladimir Putin. (Hard evidence of this was visible as recently as July 4, when Moscow sent nuclear-capable TU-95 BEAR-class bombers to the U.S. West Coast, testing American defenses.)
  Moving pieces from one part of the globe to the other is useless if there aren’t enough pieces to begin with.
Conclusion
  The U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission believes that “The apparent disparity over the past decade between U.S. predictions and the actual pace of development…raises questions as to whether flawed underlying assumptions may have affected analysis in this area, inside or outside the U.S. government.”  The Commission notes that there have been significant differences between the views of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board, (which reports that “America is viewed as China’s principal strategic adversary…China’s military  modernization is proceeding at a rate to be of concern even within the most benign interpretation of China’s motivation.”) and the State Department itself.

  From Beijing’s perspective, there has been no downside to its unprecedented military buildup. Indeed, as its power to confront America or intimidate regional neighbors has grown, the White House has responded by planning to significantly scale back American military capability.  China’s belligerent stance and aggressive territorial claims against nations such as the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and, of course Taiwan, as well as others, will only become more intense as its ability to successfully compete against diminishing American power grows.

Categories
NY Analysis

Iran’s Threat in Latin America

The assumption that Iran’s military threat is restricted to the Middle East no longer applies. The Islamic Republic’s militarily aggressive stance reaches deep into the Western Hemisphere.

That way you get convenience and the safety guidelines. viagra online canadian 100mg is an extremely popular drug which is well known to cure impotence which is an issue faced by men since a very long time. It is however advised to take just by men enduring sensual tadalafil in uk issue. This can add anxiety, sildenafil tablets 50mg stress and depression in your life. However, their levitra 10 mg effect lasts from 24 to 36 hours and begins very fast i.e., in 15 to 20 minutes.

   Iran has actively been developing Latin America as a base from which to launch military and terrorist assaults on the United States.  There is bipartisan concern in Congress that the White House has not responded to the threat, although the problem is recognized.  Before departing to a visit to Colombia, Defense Secretary Panetta noted that “We always have a concern about, in particular, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and [their] efforts to expand their influence not only throughout the Middle East but also into this region…that relates to expanding terrorism.”
 In recent testimony before Congress, Southern Command Commander USAF General Douglas Fraser stated “Iran is very engaged in Latin America…they are seeing an opportunity with some of the anti-U.S.-focused countries within the region…”
Pending Legislation
  Rep. Jeff Duncan’s (R-SC) HR 3783–the “Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012”– was reported out by Congress’s House Foreign Affairs Committee this Spring. The measure is an attempt to force the Obama Administration to respond to the very real danger now presented by the Islamic Republic’s aggressive and rapidly growing military and diplomatic threat in Latin America.
 The bill has received bipartisan support.  The lead Democrat on the committee, Brian Higgins (D-NY) noted that Tehran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah presents a danger not only in Latin America but throughout the Western Hemisphere, with an active presence in fourteen North American cities. Higgins is particularly concerned with the terrorist group’s presence in Toronto.
   The legislation notes that Iran has:
  • Used its terrorist Hezbollah proxy force in the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, to gain influence and power;
  • Built numerous  “cultural centers” and overstaffed embassies to assist its covert goals; and
  • Supported the activities of the terrorist group Hamas in South America.
   The bill specifies that Iran is complicit in numerous dangerous unlawful activities in addition to military threats, including drug trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering, forged travel documents, intellectual property pirating, and providing havens for criminals and other terrorists.
    H.R. 3783 also notes that sophisticated narco-tunneling techniques used by Hezbollah in Lebanon have been discovered along the U.S.-Mexican border, and Mexican gang members with Iranian-related tattoos have been captured.
    Evidence of Iran’s increasing boldness can be seen in last fall’s thwarted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir.
  Other Representatives, led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla), have introduced bills seeking to deny Iran the ability to mount a threat to our southern border.
A Growing Military Threat
   Reports from around the world have noted Tehran’s growing military presence in the Western Hemisphere.  Germany’s Die Welt described the Islamic Republic’s construction of intermediate range missile launch pads on Venezuela’s Paraguana Peninsula.
   Congress has been attempting to get the White House to focus on the problem for some time.  Many members were distressed by the Administration’s cutting $13 million annually from its Southern Command military budget (which has responsibility for the region) and its refusal to beef up intelligence assets in the vicinity.  Last July, Rep. Ros-Lehhtinen along with several colleagues submitted a letter to the State Department expressing concern on Iran’s hostile acts in South America.
    The Islamic Republic’s efforts have been largely successful.  In 2010, trade with Brazil increased by 0ver 80%, as noted by Steve Heydemann’s Iran Primer study. Trade with Venezuela has also increased substantially. Observers believe that, rather than representing actual economic activity, the commerce is a cover for more nefarious activities, as noted by The Foundry’s Peter Brookes. In return for economic favors, several South American nations, including Venezuela, Brazil, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Ecuador have been supportive of Tehran and its ally Syria in diplomatic forums.
   The threat is not confined to low-level tactics.  There is mounting concern that both nuclear and ballistic missile threats are emerging from Venezuelan-Iranian cooperation.
  The Tehran/Caracas axis, encouraged by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, is particularly troubling.  Brookes reports that the two nations have a Memorandum of Understanding “pledging full military support and cooperation that likely increases weapons sales.” One could easily see Tehran using Caracas as a stepping off point for attacking U.S. or other (e.g. Israeli) interests in this hemisphere or even the American homeland, especially if action is taken against Iran’s nuclear program.”
   He goes on to note that “There is concern that Iran and Venezuela are already cooperating on some nuclear issues.  There have been reports that Iran may be prospecting for uranium ore in Venezuela, which could aid both countries’ nuclear programs, should Caracas proceed…  While still prospective, of course, there is the possibility that Tehran, which has an increasingly capable missile program, could sell or help Caracas develop ballistic missiles capable of reaching American shores.”
   Iran’s interest in Latin America entails both its goals of threatening the United States and enhancing its nuclear capability.  In his testimony before theU.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Ilan Bermanstressed Iran’s need for uranium ore.
 “Iran’s indigenous uranium ore reserves are known to be limited and mostly of poor quality…Cooperation on strategic resources has emerged as a defining feature of the alliance between the Islamic Republic and the Chavez Regime.  Iran is currently known to be mining in the Roraima Basin, adjacent to Venezuela’s border with Guyana.  Significantly, that geologic area is believed to be analogous to Canada’s Athabasca Basin, the world’s largest deposit of uranium.”
   He notes that Iran “boasts an increasingly robust paramilitary presence in the region.  The Pentagon, in its 2010 report to Congress on Iran’s military power, noted that the Qods force, the elite paramilitary unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, is now deeply involved in the Americas, stationing ‘operatives in foreign embassies, charities and religious/cultural institutions to foster relationships with people, often building  on socio-economic ties with the well-established Shia Diaspora,’ and even carrying on ‘paramilitary operations to support extremists and destabilize unfriendly regimes.”
   Skirting international sanctions is also a key interest for Tehran. Despite mounting evidence, however, Berman notes that Washington has “done little concrete to respond to it…a comprehensive strategy to contest and dilute Iranian influence in the Americas remains absent.  Unless and until such a strategy does emerge, Iran’s efforts-and the threats posed by them to American interests and the U.S. homeland-will only continue to expand.”
   But is Iran truly prepared to attack the United States from Latin America?  The Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, appears to believe so.  In February, he testified before the Senate Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere that “Iranian officials…are now more willing to conduct an attack on the United States.”
   Roger F. Noriega, the former ambassador to the Organization of American States and former Assistant Secretary of State, notes that “Iranian officials have made no secret of the regime’s intention to carry its asymmetrical struggle to the streets of the United States and Europe.” As a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Noriega continues his review of Latin American issues. Through his ongoing research, he has concluded that:
“* Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are conspiring to wage an asymmetrical struggle against U.S. security and to abet Iran’s illicit nuclear program. Their clandestine activities pose a clear and present danger to regional peace and security.
* Iran has provided Venezuela conventional weapon systems capable of attacking the United States and our allies in the region.
* Iran has used $30 billion in economic ventures in Venezuela as means to launder money and evade international financial sanctions.
* Since 2005, Iran has found uranium in Venezuela, Ecuador and other
countries in the region and is conducting suspicious mining operations in some
uranium-rich areas.
* Two terrorist networks – one home-grown Venezuelan clan and another
cultivated by Mohsen Rabbani, a notorious agent of the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – proselytize, fund-raise, recruit, and train operatives on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah in many countries in the Americas.
* Hezbollah conspires with drug-trafficking networks in South America as a
means of raising resources and sharing tactics.
* The Venezuelan state-owned airline, Conviasa, operates regular service from
Caracas to Damascus and Teheran – providing Iran, Hezbollah, and associated
narco-traffickers a surreptitious means to move personnel, weapons,
contraband and other materiel.”
   It should be noted that the U.S. is not the only target of Iranian influence. Matthew Levitt, writing for Project Muse, notes that Argentina has twice suffered terrorist attacks executed by Iranian and Hezbollah agents.  The Islamic Republic freely used diplomatic cover in these actions.
White House Inaction
   Noriega is concerned that the White House is not adequately concerned about these developments, and in fact has “misinformed” Congress as to their seriousness.  “Many months ago,” Noriega writes, “We provided U.S. officials the name and contact information of a reliable Venezuelan source with privileged information [about the existence of Conviasa flights between Venezuela and the terror states if Syria and Iran]…that source was never contacted…Congressional staff members tell us that executive branch officials continue to provide vague or misleading answers to direct questions on this relatively simple subject of whether those Conviasa flights continue…President Obama declared in December 2011, ‘We take Iranian activities, including in Venezuela, very seriously, and we will continue to monitor them closely.’ Merely monitoring Iran’s foray into Latin America is the very least the United States must do to frustrate Tehran’s plans to threaten U.S. security and interests close to home.”
   The President’s sanguine attitude is matched by Vice President Biden, who recently told reporters “I guarantee you Iran will not be able to pose a hemispheric threat to the United States.”
Conclusion
   As this analysis went to print, the Wall Street Journal carried a report that Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez was providing assistance to Iranian ally Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in the form of diesel fuel to supply the Damascus regimes’ use of tanks and other heavy military equipment to violently suppress its own citizens.  Once again, the White House’s response has been that it is “monitoring” the situation, but “doesn’t have the tools to stop it.”

  The ongoing reluctance of the Obama Administration to address the large and growing threat from Iranian-South American military cooperation presents a clear and present danger to the U.S., one that will only to continue to grow more grave with each day of neglect.

Categories
NY Analysis

America’s College Crisis

A new law provides a one year extension of low interest rates on federal college tuition loans–that is, until after the elections.  But will this encourage colleges to raise tuition even higher? Can the taxpayers afford this? Why has the cost of a college degree skyrocketed over the past several decades?  

cialis cipla 20mg One just needs to have sexual stimulation during sex, this sildenafil citrate medication will not work for you. Apart from that make sure that the medicine is taken only as per viagra 100 mg the doctor. In spite viagra fast of a large availability of male infertility treatment in Kolkata is dealt with in a lot of clinics with almost 98% success rate. These days . , people choose to ignore the harmful effects of sexual problems. order cheap viagra check this pharmacy shop

                           The New Legislation

  With an eye on the upcoming November elections, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass legislation keeping interest on “Stafford” loans taken out as of July 1, 2012 at 3.4% interest for an additional year. The rate had been scheduled to double to 6.8%.

    The break comes with some fine print, however.  In a temporary provision lasting until July 1 of 2014, those taking these loans in 2012 and 2013 will not have an interest free period following graduation, although payment doesn’t have to begin for six months. Students enrolling in college without a high school diploma or a GED (except for those home schooled) enrolling in college for the first time are no longer eligible for federal student aid.
   The break doesn’t apply to new loans, or to all borrowers. The measure will affect about 7.4 million students, who will save an estimated $1,000 each, unless tuition goes up in reflection of this alleged temporary “break.” According to PRWeb, “From 2000-01 to 2010-11, the total amount of financial aid awarded to students under Title IV of the Higher Education Act jumped from $64 billion to an estimated $169 billion, a 10-year increase of 164%.”
   According to a Milliman Insight report, outstanding student loan debt in America is nearly a trillion dollars, which actually surpasses credit card debt.  The study notes that from 2003 through 2011, this loan debt jumped from $50 billion to over $900 billion. During this period, seriously delinquent loans have climbed from 6% in 2003 to over 9% in 2011.  The loans are not dischargeable, so bankruptcy is not an option for unemployed graduates who can’t pay back the loans due to a lack of jobs in our failing economy.
Excessive Tuition Costs
   The loans are vital to achieving a college education due to the continuous, excessive and unjustified increases in tuition rates. A Pew Research Centersurvey revealed that among adults aged 18 to 34 who are not in school and do not have a bachelor’s degree, 48% say they can’t afford to go to college.
   A 2003 analysis by Congress’s House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness outlines the tuition challenge:
   “America’s higher education system is in crisis due to exploding college costs.  Tuition increases are outpacing the rate of inflation, increases in family income, and even increases in state and federal financial aid…These cost increases are pricing students and families out of the college market…tuition increases have persisted regardless of circumstances…and have far outpaced inflation year after year, regardless of whether the economy has been stumbling or thriving…institutions of higher learning have continued disproportionately increasing prices.” Students graduate with an average of over $25,000 in educational debt, according to US News.
   That conclusion is supported by the 2001 National Center for Education Statistics’s “Study of College Costs and Prices…” which concluded:
  “In both the public and private not-for-profit sectors, average tuition charges increased at a faster rate than inflation…” A Center for College Affordability and Productivity Report blames wasteful spending and administrative costs for the excessive tuition charges, stating  “It is not uncommon for schools to have more people working in an administrative capacity than serving as faculty members.”
   The increase in tuition rates has been staggering.  AP‘s Education specialistChristine Armario writes that “Between 1982 and 2007, tuition and  fees increased 439% while the median family income rose [only] 147%, according to…the National Center for Public Policy & Higher Education.  The price of in-state tuition at a public university has increased by more than 5% annually in the past 10 years.  It jumped 15% between 2008 and 2010 alone.”
Student Loans
   While politically popular, low interest federal student loans have their critics.  Economics professor Richard Vedder recently wrote of his concerns in Imprimis:
   “Federal student financial assistance programs are costly, inefficient, byzantine, and fail to serve their desired objectives.  In a word, they are dysfunctional, among the worst of many bad federal programs…if financial institutions can lend to college students on credit cards and make car loans to college students in large numbers–which they do–there is no reason why they can’t also make student educational loans.”
   Vedder stresses that unlike other loans, student loans are set by political, not market, forces.  He notes that a 3.4% rate is, considering inflation, actually close to zero.  He questions why the federal government should have a monopoly on this activity, and notes that on occasion the funds received are used for non-educational purposes.
   Vedder also points to the example of an era before the current loan program took effect:
   “In the 1950s and 1960s, before these programs were large, American higher education enjoyed a golden age.  Enrollments were rising, lower-income access was growing, and American leadership in higher education was well established…the system flourished without these programs.  Subsequently, massive growth in higher education has proved counterproductive.”
    After 1965, according to a CATO study, the federal government provided increasingly large amounts of funding for college education.  Between 1965 and 2007, “real federal spending…rose from $7.5 billion to an estimated $36.6 billion.”
   The impact on the federal budget of Washington’s monopoly on college financial aid is a cause of deep concern for many observers.
   “Because of highly irresponsible fiscal policies, the federal government borrows 30 or 40 percent of the money it currently spends, much of that from overseas.  Thus we are incurring long-term obligations to foreigners to largely finance loans…” notes Vedder.
Do Colleges Raise Tuition Based on Federal Aid to Students?
   There is significant evidence to maintain that federal loans themselves are at the least partially responsible for the extravagant increases in tuition.
   Former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett, in his 1987 NY Timesarticle, “Our Greedy Colleges,” noted that “Increases in financial aid…have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise tuition, confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase…higher education is not underfunded.  It is under-accountable and under-productive.”
   A recent Atlantic magazine article, reviewing Bennett’s concept twenty five years after it was written, notes that “twenty five years of swelling tuition prices later, Bennett’s critique seems to have received a bipartisan stamp of approval.”
  The 2006 study by Larry Singell and Joe Stone, published in Science Direct’s Economics of Education Review, notes that “Increases in Pell grants appear to be matched nearly one for one by increases in list (and net) tuition.”
   A Heritage Foundation report concurs, concluding “the major reason for tuition inflation over the years is government involvement in the first place…federal subsidies insulate colleges from being remotely worried about spending money wisely or cutting costs.”
   The February National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that “institutions eligible to participate in federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act charge tuition that is about 75% higher than that charged by comparable institutions whose students cannot apply for federal financial aid…the dollar value of the premium is about equal to the amount of financial aid received by students…lending credence to the Bennett hypothesis that aid-eligible institutions raise tuition to maximize aid.”
Conclusion

   There is a vicious cycle of excessive tuition based on the availability of taxpayer-supported loans, which in turn lead to further rate hikes.  This is draining funds from students, their families, and other sectors of the economy. If the already  over-indebted federal government is to responsibly continue the politically popular student loan program, colleges who seek to be eligible must be given stringent standards as to the tuition they may charge.

Categories
NY Analysis

Turkish-American Relations

The recent clashes between Turkey and Syria highlight the pivotal role the Ankara government plays in the Middle East, NATO, and U.S. international relations as a whole. 

ED is also a kind of side effect linked online cialis pills respitecaresa.org with specific medications, such as including antihistamines, antidepressants, antihypertensive, antipsychotics, beta blockers, diuretics, tranquilizers, diet pills, cimetidine (Tagamet), and finasteride (Propecia). As per the research any medicine cannot make the disorder vanish from sildenafil online uk your life but it can definitely be cured if you’ve got strong will power and desire to have sex. 4. So it is very important to free viagra india http://respitecaresa.org/programs/site-based-services/ get the treatment if you are already taking nitrate medications for treating blood pressure. They are offering viagra soft tablets a diversified range of professional therapies; while they are also conducting ongoing tasks to prevent and control injuries.

To The Brink of War
   Syria’s shooting down of a Turkish Air Force F-4 fighter in late June highlighted more than the depreciation in relations between two nations that share a 565 mile border.
    It brought back into focus the complex relationship between the United States and NATO’s only Islamic-majority member. Shortly after the incident, the Turkish government invoked NATO Charter Article 4, allowing member states to request consultation due to an armed threat.  The organization, meeting in Brussels, expressed concern, termed Syria’s action “unacceptable,” but planned no military response pending further developments. Ankara has sent a convoy of military vehicles to the Syrian border in response.
   Prospects for further NATO involvement remain in the realm of the possible, particularly since Russia continues to pump up to a half billion dollars of armaments to prop up the Syrian regime, which has engaged in human rights violations against its own citizenry on a massive scale.
   The relationship between Ankara and Damascus has been increasingly tense.  The Free Syrian Army (FSA), which seeks to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad, is operating from within Turkey. In addition to thousands of displaced Syrian civilians who have taken refuge in Turkey, various media reports indicate that a number of Syrian military personnel, including one general, may have entered Turkey to join the FSA. For its part, Damascus is suspected of allowing anti-Turkish Kurdish militants to operate from within Syria, as it did during the 1990’s. The two nations also came to the brink of war in 1957.
U.S. Turkish Relations
    Authors Angel Rabasa and F. Stephen Larrabbe note that “As a Muslim-majority country that is also a secular democratic state, a member of NATO, a candidate for membership in the European Union, a long-standing U.S. ally, and the host of Incirlik Air Base…Turkey is pivotal to U.S. and Western security interests in a critical area of the world.”
   America’s ability to pressure the Al-Assad regime would be severely limited without Turkey’s cooperation. Fortunately for the U.S., relations between America and Ankara have improved after a particularly rough period in recent years, though divisive issues continue to exist both in international relations and in the increasingly Islamist character of the Ankara government, which has begun to dismantle the highly nonsectarian character of the nation that was instituted by President Ataturk in 1928.
    Despite Ankara and Washington’s shared concerns over Syrian and Iranian repression, disagreements still remain. Turkey would not favor an Israeli strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities (the Obama Administration has also pressured Israel to hold back.)  Its position on regional issues such as disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Russia and Georgia, diverge from that taken by the U.S. Ankara refused to provide logistical support to the West’s campaign again Saddam Hussein in 2003. Emiliano Alessandri of Italy’s Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) notes, however, that was mostly out of fear of a Kurdish uprising.

   In 2010, Turkey voted against U.N. sanctions against Iran to dissuade that nation from developing nuclear weapons.

    In the economic sphere, Turkey’s increased emphasis on European Union and Middle Eastern trade may work to the detriment of American interests. However, from 2009-2010, U.S.-Turkish trade grew by 25%, according to theState Department’s Assistant Secretary for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, Jose W. Fernandez.     
   Despite the differences, a U.S. State Department background briefing notes that: “Turkey is really a partner with which we fully engage on the full range of global considerations.  Turkey is a key player, obviously, in the Middle East, a member of NATO in the region with Greece and Cyprus and the Caucasus and Afghanistan, on the energy issue, [and] on the counterterrorism issue…the relationship is already very deep and intensive.”  Secretary of State Clinton has stated that “The U.S. and Turkish partnership is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world.”
   Despite Secretary Clinton’s enthusiasm, however, Ankara and Washington see the world through different prisms.  According to the IAI study, “Faced with an American counterpart only limitedly receptive of Turkish claims and views, Ankara’s growing inclination has been that of distinguishing itself from U.S. policies in the region, by emphasizing ‘soft’ power’ as opposed to hard means…This has led to initiatives that have created significant disagreement and tension with Washington, such as Ankara’s engagement with Hamas in Palestine, the [prior] shift from confrontation to cooperation with Syria…but also to valuable mediating efforts, such as Ankara’s brokerage in 2008 of peace talks between Syria and Israel.”
   Turkey’s relations with Israel remain an occasional problem for America. One of the lowest points occurred in the Mavi Marmara incident of May 2010, when, as described by the Congressional Research Service:
  The pro-Palestinian free Gaza Movement and the pro-Hamas Turkish Humanitarian Relief Fund organized a six ship flotilla to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and to break Israel’s blockade.  [Although Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza strip in 2005, it retained control of the borders and imposed a blockade on certain goods in the aftermath of Hamas’ 2007 forcible takeover.] The ships refused an Israeli offer to deliver goods to the [port of] Ashdod [for inspection.]…Israeli naval forces intercepted the convoy in international waters.  They took control of five of the ships in international waters without resistance.  However some activists on a large Turkish passenger vessel challenged the commandos.  The confrontation resulted in eight Turks and one Turkish-American killed, more than 20 passengers injured, and 10 Israeli commandos injured…Turkey…considered the acts unjustifiable and in contravention of international law.”
The Islamist Question
    U.S. friendship with Turkey has been criticized by Americans who are concerned with what they perceive to be the increasingly Islamist nature of the Ankara government.  According to Islam-Watch.org., “After the Islamists came to power in 2002 and opened the gates of gradual Islamization of Turkey, after 8 decades of strict secular rule, Turkey has risen to be the world’s ‘number one honor killing country,’ with a killing rate 5 times higher than that of Pakistan, known to be notorious for honor killing.” A Daily Callerarticle noted that the Islamist government “is gradually removing the country’s secularist political rules, suppressing free-speech, promoting Shariah Islamic laws and supporting the Hamas terror group’s efforts to eliminate Israel.”  The article quotes Turkish affairs expert Barry Rubin‘s statement: “A lot of people in Turkey are astounded by Obama’s policy [favoring the current regime in Ankara]…the regime has thrown hundreds of people in prison without trial or evidence…and it is turning Turkey into a repressive police state…”
Defense Issues
     As Iran develops nuclear weapons, Syria continues its belligerence, the threat of terrorism continues and the “Arab Spring” poses serious questions, the issue of defense is the key consideration in Turkish-American relations.  In a 2011 study, the Congressional Research Service noted that “How Congress and the administration manage defense cooperation with Turkey in this evolving context is likely to have a significant bearing on U.S. national security interests, as well as on both U.S. and Turkish calculations of the mutual benefits and leverage involved in the cooperative relationship.”

    It remains to be seen whether the Ankara government’s increasingly Islamist nature will have foreign policy implications.  While the trend has not proved beneficial to the West in many other nations, Turkey’s long standing relationship with NATO, and, frankly, its commonality of interest with the U.S. may produce helpful results.  Certainly, a belligerent Iran and a homicidal Syrian regime are of concern to both nations.

Categories
NY Analysis

Regulating the Ocean

The legal and diplomatic battle over regulating the oceans has resumed.  Three decades after the “The Law of the Sea Treaty”-occasionally described as “the constitution of the oceans”– was opened for signing and eighteen years after key amendments prompted signing by 162 signatory nations and the European Union, the U.S. Senate is once again debating the issue, after a five year hiatus.

Hence, you might be required to experiment a little to viagra cost in india find the right method for you. The Celtics were one place viagra price down to second with a 7-1 record. You could possibly view the trial video that is present in the original cheap cialis https://pdxcommercial.com/property/page/2?paged=2&post_type=property&term-property-main-loop=164&tax-property-main-loop=property_type called Sildenafil citrate. Although tadalafil 5mg india Schreyer wishes to increase the use of lubricant.

   The U.N.’s Division for Ocean Affairs describes the Law of the Sea Treaty as “A comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources.  It enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole…The convention comprises 320 articles and nine annexes, governing all aspects of ocean space, such  as delimitation, environmental control, marine scientific research, economic and commercial activities, transfer of technology and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters.”
 The Treaty also grants “land locked and geographically disadvantaged states…the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the exclusive economic zone of costal states of the same region and sub-region…States are bound to promote the development and transfer of marine technology ‘on fair and reasonable terms and conditions’ with proper regard for all legitimate interests.”
 The Congressional Research Service describes the Law of the Sea Convention and the 1994 amendments as “a legal regime governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans…[they are] extensive, complex documents touching on a wide range of policy issues and U.S. interests.  From the perspective of the United States, some of the most significant areas addressed by the [Law of the Sea] Convention deal with naval power and maritime commerce, coastal State interests, marine environment protection, marine scientific research, and international dispute settlement.  The [1994] Agreement focuses on deep seabed mining issues, revising and nullifying key provisions of the Convention.”
   The U.S. has one of the world’s largest coastlines and perhaps the foremost maritime concerns.  This prompted President Reagan to refuse to sign the original version of the document, although he stated that “The U.S. will accept and act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention relating to traditional (non-seabed) uses of the ocean, such as navigation and over-flight.”  As noted by the U.S. State Department, He was concerned that:
·   free market approaches to exploiting the oceans resources were not employed;
·   excess bureaucracy was involved;
·   the U.S. wasn’t guaranteed a permanent seat  on the seabed council;
·   the U.S. would have to transfer technology to other nations; and
·   the treaty didn’t provide guaranteed access to future qualified U.S. miners.
                                            SUPPORT
   Since the treaty was modified in 1994 to reflect some of those concerns, Presidents Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama have supported ratification of the Treaty.
   Support for the treaty cuts across party lines.  Democrat John Kerry, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has pursued the matter, with the support of most Democrats, including Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Panetta, who believe the treaty might serve as a vehicle to constrain Chinese actions in the South China Sea.  They are joined by prominent Republicans such as Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who collectively penned a recent pro-signing article in the New York Times, claiming that the U.S. would gain economic and military benefits.  They were particularly concerned with resource-rich areas such as the Arctic, where the Russians have staked legally questionable claims.
   The Council on Foreign Relations has emphasized what they perceive to be the Treaty’s benefits to the U.S. military:
“The treaty’s primary value to the U.S. military is that it establishes clear rights, duties, and jurisdictions of maritime states.  The treaty defines the limits of a country’s ‘territorial sea,’ establishes rules for transit through ‘international straits,’ and defines ‘exclusive economic zones’ in a way compatible with freedom of navigation and over-flight.  It further establishes the ‘sovereign inviolability’ of naval ships calling on foreign ports, providing critical protection for U.S. vessels.  More generally, the treaty allows states party to exempt their militaries from its mandatory dispute resolution provisions-allowing the United States to retain complete military freedom of action.  At the same time, the treaty does nothing at all to interfere with critical U.S.-led programs like the proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).  Nor does it subject any U.S. military personnel to the jurisdiction of any international court.”
   Advocates also claim that new levels of piracy, terrorism, and the threat of rising sea levels make ratification necessary.
                                          OPPOSITION
   Opponents (who have coined the acronym L.O.S.T. to describe the treaty) both elected officials and in the private sector, continue to note that the treaty doesn’t grant any provable benefits to the U.S. that America’s naval power, advanced technology, and enterprising private sector don’t already provide. Further, since the U.S. has the most advanced technology and the greatest ability to utilize the ocean’s resources, it would essentially be providing numerous and highly valuable benefits to other nations and interests and receive almost nothing in return.
  Opposition has been substantial in the United States Senate, where 27 Republican members recently delivered a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid stating that the treaty “reflects political, economic and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values and sovereignty.”  Noting that the Treaty includes “redistribution of the wealth from developed to undeveloped nations” and other provisions harmful to U.S. interests, the 27 senators stated they are “particularly concerned that United States sovereignty could be subjugated in many areas to a supranational government” and that “compulsory dispute resolution could pertain to public and private activities including law enforcement, maritime security, business operations, and nonmilitary services performed aboard military vessels.”
  Senate opponents remain concerned that portions of the treaty threaten American and free market interests.  They point to the Treaty’s preamble, which notes that “the area of the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, as well as its resources, are the common heritage of all mankind, the exploration and exploitation of which shall be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole, irrespective of the geographic location of states.”
  Senators Hatch and Conyn describe the provisions of the treaty as an “international tax” that would transfer billions, if not trillions, of dollars out of the American economy into an international body, as well as entities that may well be hostile to U.S. interest.  Under the treaty, non state groups, such as the PLO, could demand some of the benefits of oceanic resources. Hatch and Conyn note that “U.S. companies would be forced to give away the very types of innovation that historically have made our nation a world leader.”
   The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty Information Center notes that former Attorney General Ed Meese believes that the treaty is “Out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise…”
     U.S. News contributing editor Peter Roff emphasizes that the treaty “is one more step towards a system of global governance under which U.S. sovereignty would be subordinated to an international system managed by an unelected, self-perpetuating form of bureaucratic aristocracy that cares little for democratic traditions…[it] would do irreparable harm to U.S. military and intelligence operations and would force the United States to hand over proprietary technology to countries actively hostile to American interests.
   The Competitive Enterprise Institute‘s analysis of the treaty notes that “at a time when U.S. consumers are struggling with the rising costs of gasoline, the U.S. would eventually have to share oil revenues from development of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) beyond 200 nautical miles-roughly 14 percent of the OCS. The royalty rate under Article 82 of the Treaty hits 7 percent by the 12th year of production. The proceeds from U.S. oil exploration would be distributed by the International Seabed Authority to its member states-namely, the Third world majority.  The Treaty best provisions-covering navigation, for instance-largely codify existing international law.  Its worst provisions-those creating the seabed regulatory regime-would discourage future minerals production as well as punish entrepreneurship in related fields involving technology, software, and intellectual property that have an ocean application.”
CONCLUSION

   Supporters of the treaty have made a considerable case for the treaty’s benefits to the world at large, particularly third world nations.  They have failed, however, to clearly define what economic benefits the U.S. would gain from accession to it.

Categories
NY Analysis

Banning Food, Banning Freedom

The increasing role of government in the private life of American citizens has been portrayed as almost inevitable.  However, recent attempts to regulate the size of soft drinks brought the glare of ridicule to this trend.  The alleged good intentions of politicians in dictating personal matters raises the question of whether government has gone far beyond the functions authorized by the Constitution, at the cost of neglecting the real and pressing needs of the nation. It also raises the issue of whether there is an additional, less discussed, agenda at play.

  A salient example comes from America’s largest city, New York, which faces major problems. While the crime rate both in New York State and The United States is falling, serious crime in the metropolis is rising.  Its unemployment rate is 10.2%, far above the national average of 8.2%.  Half of its 8th graders fail statewide science tests.  Major infrastructure issues exist.  Budgetary concerns may cause the closing of firehouses. Taxes are exceptionally high.

You can avail free shipping facility with sample viagra pills order Penegra online: The reputed online pharmacies are quite trustworthy. Boosting penis health While many penis symptoms can indicate an underlying problem that may not be affected by medication. cialis pills australia You can accession your accoutrements to the akin of your viagra prescriptions online amateur while angle at the elbows. viagra brand 100mg Instead, it helps men suffering from erectile dysfunction can now be easily treated with the help of which a huge relief is felt in the minds of thousands of the customers in the world.

  The Big Apple’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, however, has other concerns on his mind.  Much of his time and attention has been spent on the dietary habits of his constituents.  He has vigorously addressed his displeasure on what he perceives to be the excess intake of calories, sugar and salt by his jurisdiction’s residents. (The mayor has also authored other bizarre decisions.  In a 2010 snowstorm, his administration’s transportation chief ordered the plowing of a bike lane before many key roadways were cleared; at least one death was attributed to the inability of an ambulance to make a timely arrival.)
  The growing gap in the time elected officials spend addressing personal peeves and the performance of their actual duty to deal with traditional governmental responsibilities has become a contentious issue on the local and national levels.  (It’s not only elected officials who are guilty of this.  The Occupy Movement was widely criticized as focusing on generalized, and rather confused, complaints about society rather than on specific challenges government can actually meet.)
 Americans increasingly perceive that their government’s emphasis on personal matters is misguided, as revealed by a Rasmussen poll taken in June.  Only 24% agree with Bloomberg’s recent attempt to ban the sale of large soft drinks, which would be imposed by the city’s unelected Board of Health at his whim, without the input of the electorate or even the local City Council.
  The response from civil libertarian think tanks has been scathing.  CATOInstitute’s David Boaz writes:
   “In a free society, government doesn’t make our personal decisions for us.  We don’t need a Big Brother or a mayoral nanny.  We have the right and the responsibility to make our own decisions, so long as we don’t interfere with the rights of others.”
   CATO has monitored the development of our overregulated society for some time.  Its policy analyst Radley Balko used the writings of Pulitzer-prize winning economist James Buchanan as part of the basis of his study.  “Conventional threats to freedom,” Buchanan wrote, “from…central planning…and…the welfare state…are today joined by…paternal socialism…which [is the] willingness among many to allow the government to take control of their lives.  The emerging threat to American liberty today, then, is…the desire among some in government to interfere in nearly every aspect of our lives, and the lack of concern on the part of many Americans that this is happening.”
  Contrary to the impression that the would-be food regulators give, Americans are not increasingly unhealthy.  The CATO study emphasized that Americans are living longer than ever.
   James Gattuso, writing in The Foundry, stated:
“Contempt for consumers is…at the heart of this proposal.  It has the distinct smell of elitism about it…the Great Unwashed…can’t be trusted with their own health…they should not be allowed to spend their money on Mountain Dew; they should spend it on vanilla lattes as their betters do.”
   The concern is not confined to conservative think tanks.  PJ Media recently asked, “If government bureaucrats can ban the types of fast food outlets available, manipulate the size and types of drinks we consume, and regulate every aspect of food preparation, what couldn’t they attempt to ban?…Will Bloomberg next propose a measure limiting red meat intake…Will the nanny state do-gooders ban hot dogs, or force Americans to take part in government exercise programs…?”
  A Hoover Institution study noted that “The current unease is rising among people who are comfortable with some substantial government role in providing jobs, supporting agriculture, subsidizing health care, financing education, or regulating banking.  They have the visceral sense that things have gone too far.  They are clearly fortified in their view by the chronic levels of unemployment…in the face of an ill-conceived stimulus program that seems to have done nothing to improve overall productivity.  And they are not amused when government pads its payroll with folks who don’t do much of anything useful.”
 Parallels have been drawn between Bloomberg’s elitist impulses and President Obama’s Health Care law.  NPR reports that “some Bloomberg critics on social media did detect a nanny state axis…and warned that Bloomberg’s proposal could be a vision of the future under Obama.”
 Conservatives have long warned that if the government is responsible for your health care, it will soon claim the right to determine what behaviors you should or should not do that affect what it will have to pay to keep you healthy.  The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein notes that Bloomberg, in defending his ban, quoted a supporter who wrote that “anyone who pays taxes and thus bears the health care costs…should support this.”
  “Ultimately,” Rasmussen notes, “Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary drinks highlights the gap between the American people and their political leaders.  Most Americans are looking for ways to change the system so that they can make their own health care choices rather than have decisions imposed on them.  The political class wants to make those choices for us.  That’s the key question in the [national] health care debate.  Who do you trust more with important decisions:  the government or the people?”
   NYC is not alone in its intrusiveness.  Author David Harsanvi writes that “countless busybodies across the nation are rolling up their sleeves to do the work of straightening out your life.  Certain Massachusetts towns have banned school-yard tag sales.  San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowels.” There are numerous other examples, some of which would be comical if the implications for civil liberty were not so serious.
   Rasmussen’s other recent polls provide an indicator of what the majority view on that issue is.  Another June poll demonstrated that 51% believe “that government is more of a threat to individual rights than a protector of them.”  An April poll revealed that “only 22% believe society would be become more fair if there was greater regulation.”
 Interference in personal matters extends beyond food.  Increasingly, education has been the battlefield where elitist attempts to regulate personal behavior have been launched.  Legal writer Elie Mystal recently wrote about the New York State Department of Education’s weird decision to ban words (are book burnings far behind?)  that they deem too controversial.  The outcast words weren’t curses or racial insults.  They included “birthday,” (it might offend Jehovah’s Witnesses) and dinosaur (which could anger creationist) as well as other harmless phases.
  It is not inappropriate to ask whether there is another agenda involved.  Many of the foods that have been objected to by the would-be nannies are the same or similar to those that were the target of anti-American protestors overseas who demonstrated at fast-food outlets such as McDonalds.
 Similarly, educational bureaucrats seem to have a penchant for banning American cultural icons. A California school sent home a student who wore a U.S. flag t-shirt on Cinco de Mayo.  A principal in Brooklyn has forbidden the singing of “God Bless America” in the odd belief that the tune would be offensive to some.
  We seem to have arrived at a time when previously unquestioned values–important ones such as personal freedom and patriotism, and lesser ones, such as the foods we eat–are no longer shared by some elitist bureaucrats. They appear anxious to subdue traditional expressions of American culture in favor of multiculturalism.
  Eugene Miller, in his study of F.A. Hayek’s opus, The Constitution of Liberty, stresses that Hayek believed that the west, as a whole, is losing faith in the principles of liberty.   Government, Hayek noted, must be prevented from using coercion improperly.

   There’s a lot more at stake than your right to quench that thirst with a large Coke.

Categories
NY Analysis

Abandoning Space

The substantial troubles faced by the U.S. economy have been made worse by Americas’ gradual loss of technological superiority to other nations.  The most salient example of this is the nation’s vaunted space program, the preeminence of which has been sharply diminished due to budget cuts. Can privatization of space activities restore the country’s leadership in this crucial realm?

It can be stress, depression, anxiety, tadalafil india 20mg insomnia, low immunity, allergy, skin problems, muscle skeleton pains, neuropathy, etc. On the whole, a strong immune system does a viagra sale midwayfire.com remarkable job in protecting you against microorganisms that cause diseases. Erectile brokenness is a condition where penile erection is not accomplished and kept cialis soft generic up amid physical intercourse. Climaxing has been known to benefit a woman, both psychologically and physically. pfizer viagra mastercard

   The successful mission of the SpaceX company’s Dragon space craft, launched by the corporation’s own rocket, Falcon 9, provided a desperately needed boost to American space fortunes.  The nation’s credibility had been severely reduced when the Shuttle era ended with no replacement capable of engaging in the orbital activities necessary to maintain a strong presence in space.  It is highly disturbing that after winning the race to the moon and outlasting the very existence of its chief rival, the Soviet Union, Washington is currently incapable of putting an astronaut into space and must pay Moscow to ferry astronauts to orbit.  China, which has also launched men into space, is currently more capable of manned space flight than America. Beijing has embarked on an exceptionally ambitious program that includes plans for its own orbiting space station and trips to the Moon.
   The U.S. has no plans for reestablishing a manned space program until 2017, at the earliest.  But as any observer of federal budgetary practices knows, plans that go beyond the tenure of the current administration are not guaranteed, so even that date can’t be certain.  Just as Spain lost its preeminence in exploration to Great Britain centuries ago, the United States is in danger of surrendering its leading role in space to other nations, particularly two nations which are not friendly to America.
   Commentator Charles Krauthammer notes that while in the future private companies will have a vigorous portion of space activity, that future remains decades away, and “In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and China.”
  Democrats in Congress during the Bush (43) administration began to grumble that America’s future plans would spend funds they felt should be committed to domestic programs. President Obama acted on those concerns after taking office. The vast sums he spent on stimulus programs included nothing for NASA. Republicans have failed to vigorously opposed the lack of White House support, and have not made the matter a significant issue.  Indeed, they too have at times been less than supportive of NASA’s needs.
   It’s not only manned space flight that has been slashed by the Obama White House.  According to the Planetary Society, “The U.S. Administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 would force NASA to walk away from planned missions to Mars, delay flagship missions to the outer planets for decades, and gradually slow the pace of scientific discovery…if this budget is allowed to stand, the United States will walk away from decades of greatness in space science and exploration.  More than that, the U.S. will lose expertise, capability and talent…we’ll quickly stop producing scientists, technicians, and engineers that can lead.”
   Both Presidents Bush (43) and Obama gave more verbal than fiscal support to the space program, (which even when “fully funded” receives only about 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.  A space research advocacy publication, Mars Daily, notes that Russia commits a higher portion of its GDP to space industry than the U.S.) but the recent cuts under the current administration have been the most severe. The detrimental impact on the general American economy from defunding space efforts can’t be overstated.  Over 94% of every dollar funding space sciences goes to universities, industries which provide well paid positions, and other organizations.  As reported in a previous NY ANALYSIS OF POLICY & GOVERNMENT report, up to 27,000 skilled and related positions may be lost due to the underfunding of space activity.
  According to statements made by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to the Washington Times, “The absolute lack of understanding of the importance of human space flight that this administration demonstrates is mind-numbing…the issue isn’t just jobs, although, of course, in this economy every job is precious…it isn’t even about America being #1 in the world…it isn’t even [only] about national security and the need to maintain our industrial base…there is something innate in humanity that calls us to [explore.]”
  Private companies are attempting to fill at least part of this void, with significant support from the public. According to a Wall Street Journal poll, 76% of Americans enthusiastically support corporate efforts.  The concept of allowing the private sector to boldly go where only governments had gone before actually began with President Reagan’s 1984 signing of the Commercial Space Launch Act.  It was supplemented in 1990 when President Bush (41) signed the Launch Services Purchase Act. Russia has also seen private ventures interact with government space efforts.
  The extraordinary success of the DRAGON mission to the International Space Station is a landmark in the privatization effort.  According to Philip McAlister, NASA’s Director for Commercial Space Flight Development, “NASA is working with private industry in an unprecedented way, cultivating innovation on the path toward maintaining America’s leadership in space exploration.” This represents a change of heart on the part of the space agency.  According to Lewis Solomon, author of  The Privatization of Space Exploration, “For too long, NASA’s culture remained indifferent, if not hostile, to commercial activity.”
  Approximately $381 million was committed by NASA for the DRAGON effort. Complementing unmanned plans, NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will attempt to launch astronauts using private facilities and vehicles. SPACEX  seeks to accomplish that goal in about three years.
  NASA is still developing its own ORION manned capsule, an advanced version of the old APOLLO spacecraft that will utilize a new launcher to place Americans into space.  Funding issues continue to plague the effort, however.
  NASA essentially plays the role of the chief, and in many cases sole, customer of advanced space technology under its Commercial Orbital Transportation Service program (COTS), an effort that began in 2006 with investments of about $800 million. That figure does not cover any private manned space craft which a number of companies are developing for a variety of uses, including space tourism. The goal is to use the private sector to provide space services in a less costly manner than a government-run program could.
  A NASA document states that “Under COTS, NASA is helping commercial partners develop and demonstrate their own cargo space transportation capabilities to serve the U.S. Government and other potential customers.  The companies lead and direct their own efforts, with NASA providing technical and financial assistance.”
  NASA wants to outsource to the private sector all cargo and crew missions to the Space Station by 2017.  However, both the Senate and the House have sliced funding from the effort.  Critics both in and out of government have complained that NASA should select a single contractor, rather than encourage competition among a number of companies, in an effort to accelerate progress and end America’s embarrassing inability to launch its own astronauts.
  Other obstacles affect private sector initiatives, as well.  Uncertainty over a number of international legal issues may chill corporate efforts.  An “International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities” may impose unforeseen burdens on private, military and civilian efforts. The Obama Administration favors the Code, and has not included Congress in his deliberations.  Congress has expressed concern over potential issues, and has enacted measures to counter the Administration’s plans.

  The United States must rethink its diminished emphasis on space exploration and exploitation immediately.  Even the most hard-pressed farmer knows that eating the seeds meant for the next harvest is a bad idea.  Withdrawing from the arena that will be a prime focus of economic wealth in the coming years in order to save a relatively minute amount is a terrible investment strategy.

Categories
NY Analysis

INTERNET FREEDOM IN PERIL

Members of the United Nations will meet this coming December at theWorld Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai to conduct negations that will impact the future of the internet. The freedom to engage in uncensored political speech is at stake.

Sex is all about giving pleasure and making love to your partner and discounts on levitra some not known problems can further cause more problems. This concept seems paradoxical davidfraymusic.com levitra prescription to most. Loss of muscle mass is a complicated process that involves the brain, hormones, emotions, nerves, lowest price on viagra muscles and blood vessels. And when individuals are feeling happy, it increases their sex drive. canadian cialis generic davidfraymusic.com 4.

   Despite the seriousness of the topic, there will be little public input at this government-only meeting.  Several nations, particularly Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are expected to vigorously push for the legal ability to control the internet beyond their own borders. Worried advocates of continuing free speech have demanded more openness in preparations for the landmark meeting, and that no change be made to the unrestricted nature of discourse within this powerful medium.
 Summarizing the recent Toronto Conference on Internet Issues,Cyberdialogue 2012 noted that “Positions are solidifying around two very different visions marked by strong ideological undertones…the current situation represents a battle over values: the value of an open, democratic cyber commons on the one hand versus a closed state-dominated architecture on the other.  The internet has become the strategic and operational centre of gravity in this battle, while states are using different instruments of power and persuasion to shape or control it.”
   The impact of the internet on dictatorial countries has been traumatic, and authoritarian leaders are reacting.  As noted by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last month, in 2011 60 journalists were killed, the highest level since the 1990s. In 2012, one journalist has been murdered every five days. “…countless others faced intimidation, harassment and censorship at the hands of governments, corporations and powerful individuals seeking to preserve their power or hide misdeeds.”  Arrests and killings of those writing on the internet have been increasing in number. U.N. General Assembly Chair Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser noted that the “Arab Spring” would not have occurred without the internet, as noted in UN Document OBV/1099.
   In 2011, Secretary of State Clinton noted that China has pressured private companies to engage in “self management, self-restraint, and strict discipline.”  In other words, Beijing forced the private sector to self-censor out of fear of being excluded from the lucrative Chinese market.  However, rather than championing the concept of unrestricted free speech, she noted last December that “…delivering on internet freedom requires cooperative actions…”
  Clinton’s State Department has failed to adequately combat internet censorship, according to the Global Internet Freedom Consortium.  In fact, although Congress provided $50 million in funding to the State Department for this fight, little has been done.
   Unlike the American concept of First Amendment rights, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has echoed those who believe in censorship by stating that “considering the immediate impact of information in the digital world, journalists must be much more responsible in their work to ensure accuracy, balance and fairness, and not use the media to disseminate hatred or conflict, or incite violence.”  Unfortunately, the definitions of “accuracy, balance, fairness and inciting” would be left to the same rulers who internet writers may be opposing.  The fact is, both governments and other powerful institutions have increasingly killed, arrested or censored internet journalist.
   Raven Clabough writes that China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are introducing a resolution at the U.N. to establish an internet “governance” concept that would insert censorship into this most democratic of media.
   “These authoritarian countries have pushed an agenda to censor the internet in a variety of forums.  In 2011, they suggested at the U.N. General Assembly that a code of conduct be introduced for the use of the internet through international law.  They also proposed the creation of a separate UN “super agency” to be responsible for managing all aspects of internet policy…Last year, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with the head of the [UN’s] International Telecommunications Union [ITU] and declared ‘international control over the internet’ to be vital.  Former UN Ambassador David Gross contends that “in the…[December] conference…countries such as China and Russia will once again attempt to expand the authority of the ITU.”
   In addition to the well-known authoritarian regimes, Brazil has vigorously pursued the concept of “policing” the internet.  Former U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who once served as chairman of the House’s Subcommitee on Communications, technology and the Internet, and co-founded the Congressional Internet Caucus, believes that once the Pandora’s Box of regulation is opened, the censorship impulse will continue to grow stronger.  “The serious danger of imposing greater regulatory control over the internet’s “hub” is that multinational regulation naturally moves in the direction of the most aggressively regulatory regimes.”   He notes in a Politico article that “It is particularly curious that China is now advocating for greater centralized control over the internet-when it is already so successful at imposing rigidly authoritarian web regulations on its own citizens.”
 Concern has been mounting in Washington about the Obama Administration’s position on the issue.  Prior to 2010, according to a National Research Council report cited in Cyberdialogue, the USA, for the most part, avoided international “cooperation” regarding the internet.  However, the Obama Administration has changed this.
  The major shift could be seen in the White House’s acceptance of the innocuous sounding but worrisome Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or “ACTA.”   The general purpose of the measure is to establish global standards and an international legal framework to enforce intellectual property rights, copyright laws, etc., a goal that is clearly in American interest. But both the means it uses to do so, and the manner in which the President imposed its provisions, has caused extraordinary concern to civil libertarians and constitutional traditionalists.
 Under the treaty, signed by President Obama last October, foreign corporations are entitled to demand that internet service providers (ISPs) remove web content within the United States without any court supervision.  The precedent this sets will be used as a bedrock precedent for authoritarian nations to demand that critical comments be removed from U.S. websites in future treaties.
  Equally as worrisome is the manner in which Washington “ratified” the measure.  The treaty has been presented by the White House as  an “executive agreement,” circumventing any interaction with Congress.  As noted in theIndependent Political Report, “by signing ACTA without Senate approval, Obama has called his commitment to internet freedom into question.  As noted in a Forbes review, “The treaty has been secretly negotiated behind the scenes between governments with little or no public input…ACTA bypasses the sovereign laws of participating nations, forcing ISPs across the globe to act as internet police…opponents say the convention adversely affects fundamental rights including freedom of expression and privacy.”
   The rising threat of governmental censorship and lawsuits is threatening the internet’s freedom.  A Boston College International and Comparative Law Review analysis written by Kevin Meehan notes that:
   “Many internet content providers are faced with the uncertainty of being sued in unanticipated jurisdictions for violating unknown laws with untold consequences. Their fear is grounded in a realty demonstrated in a Brazilian court order entered against Google subsidiary YouTube, which resulted in at least one Brazilian telecom company blocking the site from its internet users.  Although the judge vacated his order shortly after the ban went into effect, this libel case demonstrates the enormous impact internet jurisdiction can have e-commerce.”
   Other cases, notably one involving Yahoo! and the French courts, have had a chilling effect on U.S. ISPs, even though they have not yet overruled 1st Amendment protections. Franz Mayer, in a review essay entitled The Internet and Public International Law-Worlds Apart? emphasizes that experts such as Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig  detect a trend towards “more and more regulation through code under the influence of commerce, which, according to him is not inevitable, as there is a choice as to what cyberspace will look like and what freedoms it will guarantee.”
   Can legitimate concerns such as copyright protections be addressed by an overarching international regulatory super agency, without impeding American 1st Amendment rights?   Increasingly, the answer appears to be a resounding “no.”  Mark Joyce, in an article entitled Censoring Cyberspace: A Free Speech Analysis of the Problems, Controversies, and Possible Solutions Posed by International Internet Regulation, notes that “An international agreement, while perhaps a good idea in theory, is ultimately an unrealistic objective, given the vast range of perspectives, across the international spectrum, on exactly what content should be protected and what should be prohibited.” Joyce concludes that simpler cooperative efforts on a state to state level offer more practical solutions.
   The very fact that international meetings involving new internet regulatory discussions are held largely apart from public scrutiny and participation is sufficient to warrant deep and substantial distrust. Americans have protected their Constitutional rights against foreign military threats for over two centuries. It is highly inappropriate to allow them to be limited now under the aegis of an unelected international regulatory agency.
   Neither the President nor the legislative branch possesses the constitutional authority to limit free speech rights under any international internet regulatory framework.