Sorry, Kids. We Ate It All. By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Sorry, Kids. We Ate It All.
October 15, 2013 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Eventually this shutdown crisis will end. And eventually the two parties will make another stab at a deal on taxes, investments and entitlements. But there’s one outcome from such negotiations that I can absolutely guarantee: Seniors, Wall Street and unions will all have their say and their interests protected. So the most likely result will be more tinkering around the edges, as our politicians run for the hills the minute someone accuses them of “fixing the deficit on the backs of the elderly” or creating “death panels” to sensibly allocate end-of-life health care. Could this time be different? Short of an economic meltdown, there is only one thing that might produce meaningful change: a mass movement for tax, spending and entitlement reform led by the cohort that is the least organized but will be the most affected if we don’t think long term — today’s young people.

Whether they realize it or not, they’re the ones who will really get hit by all the cans we’re kicking down the road. After we baby boomers get done retiring — at a rate of 7,000 to 11,000 a day — if current taxes and entitlement promises are not reformed, the cupboard will be largely bare for today’s Facebook generation. But what are the chances of them getting out of Facebook and into their parents’ faces — and demanding not only that the wealthy do their part but that the next generation as a whole leaves something for this one? Too bad young people aren’t paying attention. Or are they?

Wait! Who is that speaking to crowds of students at Berkeley, Stanford, Brown, U.S.C., Bowdoin, Notre Dame and N.Y.U. — urging these “future seniors” to start a movement to protect their interests? That’s Stan Druckenmiller, the legendary investor who made a fortune predicting the subprime bust, often accompanied by Geoffrey Canada, the president of the Harlem Children’s Zone, of which Druckenmiller is the biggest funder. What are they doing on a Mick Jagger-like college tour where they don’t sing, don’t dance, and just go through a set of charts showing young people how badly they’ll be hammered if our current taxes, growth rates, defense spending and entitlements stay where they are?

“My generation — we brought down the president in the ’60s because we didn’t want to go into the war against Vietnam,” Druckenmiller told an overflow crowd at Notre Dame last week. “People say young people don’t vote; young people don’t care. I’m hoping after tonight, you will care. There is a clear danger to you and your children.”

Whenever Druckenmiller (a friend) is challenged by seniors, who also come to his talks, that he is trying to start an intergenerational war, he has a standard reply: “No, that war already happened, and the kids lost. We’re just trying to recover some scraps for them.”

With graph after graph, they show how government spending, investments, entitlements and poverty alleviation have overwhelmingly benefited the elderly since the 1960s and how the situation will only get worse as our over-65 population soars 100 percent between now and 2050, while the working population that will have to support them — ages 18 to 64 — will grow by 17 percent. This imbalance will lead to a huge burden on the young and, without greater growth, necessitate cutting the very government investments in infrastructure, Head Start, and medical and technology research that help the poorest and also create the jobs of the future.

Druckenmiller is not looking to get his taxes cut. He considers Social Security and Medicare great achievements for how they’ve reduced poverty among the elderly. He and Canada are simply convinced that only a Vietnam-war-scale movement by the young can break through the web of special interests to force politicians to put in place the reforms that would actually secure both today’s seniors and future seniors, today’s middle class and the wanna-be middle class. (Watch their N.Y.U. presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbgIiAnpcPc).

Druckenmiller urges young people to design their own solutions, but, when asked, he recommends: raising taxes on capital gains, dividends and carried interest — now hugely weighted to the wealthy and elderly — to make them equal to earned income taxes; making all consumers more price sensitive when obtaining health care; means-testing Social Security and Medicare so they go to those most in need; phasing in higher age qualifications for entitlements and cutting corporate taxes to zero, so the people who actually create jobs will have more resources to do so.


At the Harlem Children’s Zone, explains Canada, “we have made a promise to all of our children: you play by the rules, do well in school, avoid drugs, gangs, crime and teenage pregnancy, and we will get you into college and on your way down the path of the middle class” and toward a future of financial security. But, he adds, “the current spending on my generation — I’m 61 — if it continues unabated, will erase any chance my children will have the safety net of social, education and health services they will need. It seems deeply offensive to me that we will be asking these poor children from Harlem to subsidize a generation that is, by and large, more well-off than they are, and then leave them deeply indebted in an America that had eaten the seed corn of the next generation.”

Accused Somali pirates on trial in France for 2009 hijacking

Accused Somali pirates on trial in France for 2009 hijacking
Monday, October 14, 2013   Peter Snyder at 11:07 AM ET

[JURIST] Three Somali pirates accused of hijacking a private yacht off the coast of Somalia in 2009 went on trial in France Monday. The situation garnered heavy media coverage after French special services attempted to rescue [Telegraph report] the three french nationals being held captive on the sailboat on April 10, 2009, four days after they were taken hostage. The operation led to the death of the boat's captain, Florent Lemacon, and the freeing of his wife and son. The three pirates now between the ages of 27 and 31 have been held in French custody [AFP report] since the incident four years ago.


A number of countries around the world have taken actions in the attempt to solve the problem of maritime piracy [JURIST news archive]. In August a jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] convicted [JURIST report] three Somali men of hijacking a boat and killing four Americans in 2011 off the coast of Somalia. In February the Abu Dhabi Federal Appeal Court upheld the sentences [JURIST report] of 10 Somali pirates convicted of highjacking a UAE-owned bulk-carrier ship in April 2011. In October 2012 the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg [official website, in German] issued sentences [JURIST report] for 10 Somalis who were involved in the hijacking the German freighter MS Taipan off the coast of Somalia two years ago.

Belgium authorities arrest accused Somali pirate leader

Belgium authorities arrest accused Somali pirate leader
Monday, October 14, 2013   Addison Morris at 2:01 PM ET

[JURIST] Belgian authorities announced on Monday that suspected Somali pirate leader Mohammed Abdi Hassan was detained by authorities at the Brussels Airport [corporate website] on Saturday. Thought to be responsible for numerous vessel hijackings, Belgian prosecutors have been seeking Abdi Hassan, also known as "Big Mouth," for some time. However, as Abdi Hassan rarely traveled, authorities were unable to arrest him, and felt that an international arrest warrant would produce little result. In order to lure the pirate leader out of Somalia, authorities posed undercover to request his services as an expert adviser for a fake piracy documentary, which was to be modeled after his own experiences. Abdi Hassan flew into Brussels in order to sign film contracts, but was instead arrested as soon as the plane touched down. His traveling companion, accomplice Mohamed Aden Tiiceey, was also arrested. Both Abdi Hassan and Tiiceey face kidnapping and hijacking charges stemming from 2009, when they allegedly held a Belgian dredging ship captive [BBC report] for more than 70 days, only releasing the crew after receiving a large ransom.


Various tribunals have attempted to prosecute Somali pirates [JURIST news archive]. A jury for the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [official website] recommended [JURIST report] in August that three Somali pirates convicted [JURIST report] of murdering four Americans receive life in prison sentences. In February the Abu Dhabi Federal Appeals Court upheld [JURIST report] the sentences of 10 Somali pirates convicted of highjacking a UAE-owned bulk-carrier ship. Last October the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg issued sentences [JURIST report] for 10 Somalis who were involved in the hijacking the German freighter MS Taipan off the coast of Somalia. Last October an appeals court in Kenya ruled [JURIST report] that Kenyan courts have jurisdiction to try international piracy suspects.

MacArthur Document Reports Imperial Japanese Military’s “Sanction” of Comfort Women Brothels

MacArthur Document Reports Imperial Japanese Military’s “Sanction” of Comfort Women Brothels
PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 15, 2013

“An August 1, 2013 editorial in the Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan’s largest circulation daily, carried the title “Comfort Women Allegations Distort Japanese History.” The greatest distortion here is the amnesia of an influential portion of Japanese society in addressing World War II history.” ~ Dennis P. Halpin 

The Yomiuri Shimbun recently published a controversial editorial that challenged the characterization of comfort women as “sex slaves,” and suggested that such labels were historically inaccurate. It noted that the Japanese government could not find official documents proving that the women were recruited by force.

Dennis P. Halpin, former House Foreign Relations Committee staff member and current Visiting Scholar at the US-Korea Institute at SAIS, examines the 1945 report, ”Amenities in the Japanese Armed Forces,” published by command of General MacArthur (declassified in 1992) and compiled by the Allied Translator and Interpreter Section (ATIS) of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces (SCAP), which refutes the Japanese government’s claims.



Dennis P. Halpin is currently a visiting scholar at the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in South Korea, U.S. consul in Pusan, and a House Foreign Affairs Committee staff member for over twelve years. 

Haiti Cholera Battle Against UN Moves to US Court

Haiti Cholera Battle Against UN Moves to US Court
by Kristen Boon

After receiving a staunch “no” from the UN earlier this year, lawyers for Haiti Cholera victims filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York today.  The complaint is available here.   The complaint seeks certification of a class that is composed of cholera victims who are Haitian and US citizens. The basis of the class action is that the plaintiffs have a right to a remedy under Haitian tort law, and includes a request for relief on the basis of wrongful death, and infliction of emotional harm.  Moreover, in reference to international law, the plaintiffs assert:

Defendants UN and MINUSTAH have well-established legal obligations to provide redress to victims of harm caused by acts or omissions attributable to the Defendants, which includes the members of the proposed Class. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN of 1946 (“CPIUN”) expressly requires Defendant UN to provide appropriate modes of settlement for third-party private law claims. The Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”) signed between Defendant UN and the Government of Haiti expressly requires the UN to establish a standing claims.

To date, the UN has denied legal responsibility on the basis of Article 29 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities stating that the claim is not receivable.  Presumably, the justification is that this is a public rather than a private law claim, although the UN’s response did not spell this out, as I discussed in an earlier blog here.  What the UN has focussed on instead is a fund for improved sanitation and water infrastructure.

Pressure on the UN has mounted.  On Tuesday, the UN High Commission for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, urged the UN to compensate the victims, although she did not state where that money should come from. An important report produced this summer by students and professors at the Yale Law School Transnational Clinic has also called for compensation.   In addition, the UN Independent Panel of Experts convened in 2011 to investigate the source of cholera in Haiti published a new academic article this summer that concluded that MINUSTAH was the most likely source of cholera in Haiti.  The precise language they use is:

“The preponderance of the evidence and the weight of the circumstantial evidence does lead to the conclusion that personnel associated with the Mirebalais MINUSTAH facility were the most likely source of introduction of cholera into Haiti.”

Even Haiti, conspicuously silent about the potential responsibility of the UN for this outbreak, changed its tune at the recent General Assembly meetings and where its Prime Minister argued that the UN has moral responsibility for the outbreak.


The complaint deals only briefly with the question of privileges and immunities, which is likely to be the UN’s first defense.  As I noted in this blog, this will be an obstacle the plaintiffs are unlikely to surmount.  Nonetheless, I suspect the lawyers are seeking a different kind of victory here.  They are exposing the limits of the UN’s internal justice system, forcing the public to focus on the disastrous health consequences of the cholera epidemic in Haiti, and highlighting the accountability gap that has emerged in light of the refusal to establish a claims commission.

Canada court upholds law against doctor-assisted suicide

Canada court upholds law against doctor-assisted suicide
Laura Klein Mullen at 1:42 PM ET  October 10, 2013

[JURIST] The Court of Appeal for British Columbia [official website] on Thursday upheld[judgment] Canada's law against doctor-assisted suicide. Justice Lynn Smith for the Supreme Court of British Columbia had ruled [JURIST report] last year that the provisions of Canada's Criminal Code unjustly violate the rights to life, liberty and equality. She reasoned that physician-assisted suicide could be executed if adequate safeguards were in place. In a split 2-1 decision, the appeals court overturned the ruling of the lower court:

As the law now stands, there does not appear to be an avenue for relief from a generally sound law that has an extraordinary, even cruel, effect on a small number of individuals. Such individual relief is often referred to as a constitutional exemption. In the past that possibility existed in Canada. ... At the least, a court of law, unencumbered by previous judicial direction, accustomed to assessing issues of consent and influence, and with a perspective outside the (often overstressed) health care regime, should in our view be required to assess individual cases.

The government of Canada had announced its intention to appeal last year's ruling [JURIST report] in July 2012. The case will likely be heard next by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Opinions regarding the right to die [JURIST news archive] have been sharply divided around the world. In May the Louisiana legislature passed a bill [JURIST report] strengthening the state's ban on euthanasia. Earlier that month Georgia Governor Nathan Deal [official website] signed legislation banning assisted suicide[JURIST report] in the state. In 2011 an India high court ruled passive euthanasia was permitted [JURIST report] under certain circumstances, but rejected a petition for a mercy killing. In 2010 a German court ruled that removing a patient from life support is not a criminal offense [JURIST report] if the patient had previously given consent. In 2009 the Italian president refused to sign [JURIST report] a government decree stopping the euthanasia of comatose women because it would violate the separation of power overturning a previous court ruling.

U.S. Fringe Festival By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

October 8, 2013   U.S. Fringe Festival   By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

There is one group of people with an even greater interest than Democrats in President Obama prevailing over Tea Party Republicans in this shutdown showdown, and that is mainstream Republicans.

What exactly are supposedly mainstream conservatives — starting with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — thinking? If the “Ted Cruz Wing” of the G.O.P. prevails and forces the president to curtail Obamacare in any way in return for funding the government, mainstream conservatives will be staring at a terrible future. In the near term, they’ll be taking orders from Senator Ted Cruz, who would be crowned kingmaker of the G.O.P. if he got Obama to give in one iota on Obamacare. Cruz and his Tea Party allies would be calling the shots, and Boehner would become that very rare bird — a SPINO (a Speaker in Name Only).

In the long run, because this fringe would be dictating the party line, Republicans would stand zero chance of winning the White House in 2016. If the country rejected Mitt Romney’s bad imitation of a far-right conservative — one hostile to immigration reform, health care, gay marriage and a grand bargain — imagine how the real thing would fare.

Finally, given the way the Republicans have managed to gerrymander so many Congressional districts in their favor, they can easily retain control of the House under any normal economic conditions. But if they trigger a U.S. government default, a disruption in Social Security payments and economic turmoil in their effort to scuttle Obamacare — and a majority of voters blame Republicans — that could overwhelm the G.O.P.’s gerrymandered House advantage.

In other words, the only thing standing between mainstream Republicans and a hellish future of kowtowing to Ted Cruz, never seeing the inside of the White House and possibly losing the House is President Obama’s refusal to give in to the shutdown blackmail that Cruz & Co. have cooked up. The more pragmatic Republicans, who know that this is a disaster for their party but won’t confront Cruz & Co., have settled on this bogus line: “Well, sure, maybe Cruz and the Tea Party went too far, but it’s still President Obama’s fault. He’s president. He should negotiate with them. He needs to lead.”

President Obama is leading. He is protecting the very rules that are the foundation of any healthy democracy. He is leading by not giving in to this blackmail, because if he did he would undermine the principle of majority rule that is the bedrock of our democracy. That system guarantees the minority the right to be heard and to run for office and become the majority, but it also ensures that once voters have spoken, and their representatives have voted — and, if legally challenged, the Supreme Court has also ruled in their favor — the majority decision holds sway. A minority of a minority, which has lost every democratic means to secure its agenda, has no right to now threaten to tank our economy if its demands are not met. If we do not preserve this system, nothing will ever be settled again in American politics. There would be nothing to prevent a future Democratic Congress from using the exact same blackmail to try to overturn a law enacted by their Republican rivals.

The president has said that he would give the G.O.P. an agenda for negotiations that could start when the government is funded and the debt ceiling lifted. He’s ready to consider trading the medical-device tax in Obamacare for another equivalent source of revenue or having a talk about closing tax loopholes and reforming entitlements — to both lower the deficit and raise revenue to invest in infrastructure or early childhood education. What Obama will not do, and must not do, is pay an entry fee to that negotiation — say giving up the medical-device tax — just to help Boehner down from the tree. Cruz & Co. would claim victory.

The reason so many mainstream Republican lawmakers want Obama to give something to Cruz & Co. is that they want to get out of this mess, but they’re all afraid to stand up to the far-right fringe themselves — with its bullying network of barking talk-show hosts and moneymen. But Obama shouldn’t take them off the hook. Only Republicans can delegitimize the nihilistic madness at the base of their party. (I wouldn’t exaggerate this, but I think Boehner underestimates how many mainstream Republicans feel their party is being stolen from them by radicals — and hunger for a leader who will take them on.)

For their party’s sake and the country’s sake, Republicans need to go through the same kind of civil war and fundamental rethinking that the British Labour Party went through — after successive defeats by Margaret Thatcher — to produce “New Labour” and that Democrats went through — after successive defeats by Ronald Reagan — to produce “Clinton Democrats.”


Yes, it will cost them today, but it will enable them to thrive in the future. America needs a proper right-of-center conservative party to challenge a left-of-center Democratic Party. Without a healthy opposition party — one that is ready to win some and lose some and learn from its losses, one that has a real agenda for upward mobility, not just a low-tax obsession and boiling anger — our two-party system doesn’t work, and neither does the country.

The real threat to U.S. national security, By RICHARD HAASS

The real threat to U.S. national security
By RICHARD HAASS | 10/7/13 3:21 PM EDT

The United States faces a number of serious challenges from abroad, including a more assertive China, terrorists, climate change, a North Korea with nuclear weapons and an Iran close to having them, and a turbulent Middle East. But the greatest threat to American national security comes from within — from our own political dysfunction.

The ongoing shutdown of the federal government is only the most recent example of this reality. It comes against the backdrop of sequestration (which cuts spending without regard to its economic consequences and fails to protect investment in the physical and human capital needed to make this country competitive over the long term) and the pending vote to raise the debt ceiling, the failure of which to pass would push interest rates higher, causing both economic growth and markets to plummet.

Some observers have noted the dangers posed to U.S. security by the shutdown, citing the furlough of federal employees who provide intelligence that helps keep us safe. This is true, but the consequences of what is going on (and not going on) within Congress and between Congress and the White House threaten U.S. national security in other, even more significant ways.

Foreign policy and a country’s reputation are as much about what it is as what it does. This country sacrificed an enormous amount in both lives and treasure in trying to spread democracy to the greater Middle East. One can argue the wisdom of having tried to do so, but what cannot be argued is that we are now discrediting democracy by shutting down our own government. The appeal of the American economic model took a major hit from the events of 2008; now we are doing the same to our political model. No one should be surprised when official entreaties to Egyptians go ignored, or when elites in China and other authoritarian societies conclude that their approach, for all its flaws, is still preferable to ours.

Even more dangerous is the likelihood that political disorder here at home will lead to political disorder abroad. The most important currency for a great power is to be reliable and predictable. Friends and allies count on it, as it is their principal source of security. Actual and would-be foes also need to take U.S. capacities and commitments into account, as they know that certain actions on their part will trigger a U.S. response, possibly military retaliation. In return, the United States derives influence and a more stable world.

America’s reputation for reliability was already suffering before the shutdown, in large part because of President Obama’s uncertain handling of the Syria crisis. The eleventh-hour decision to ask Congress for the authority to carry out limited military strikes against a Syrian government that had used chemical weapons was a source of dismay even to those who questioned the wisdom of the strikes themselves – especially as most observers judged this Congress would not support such Obama’s request.

Now comes the cancellation of the president’s trip to Asia, making a mockery of the “pivot” or rebalancing to that part of the world and away from the Middle East, which was the big strategic theme of Obama’s foreign policy. The result is that small countries in the region are more likely to acquiesce to Chinese demands, while stronger countries, such as Japan, are more likely to take it upon themselves to stand up to China. One can hear the tectonic plates shifting in a part of the world destined to shape much of the trajectory of the 21st century.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, uncertainty about U.S. behavior has led a number of longstanding partners to discount U.S. preferences and simply conduct their own foreign policy. One sees this in Saudi policy toward Egypt and Syria — and we could well see more of it in Israel’s policy toward Iran.

Speaking of Iran, it is unclear that Obama could persuade Congress to go along with any easing of sanctions, sure to be a necessary part of any deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program. The same holds for trade policy: Even if the U.S. trade representative manages to conclude negotiations with his Asian counterparts, no one can predict with confidence that an increasingly isolationist Congress would go along.

So where will divisions inside the Beltway lead us in the world outside? The short answer is that American political dysfunction is hastening the emergence of a post-American world. It is not that the primacy of the United States will come to be replaced by anyone else – no other country has the capacity or habits to take on such a role – but rather that this world will be one defined by growing disarray. A failure of governance in the United States is leading to a failure of governance in the world.

Americans are kidding themselves if they think they can insulate themselves from such a world. Globalization will visit us, whether we like it or not, whether we are ready or not.

So Americans should see the government shutdown and what it represents for what it is: a threat to this country’s national security. Those who oppose Obamacare should try to amend or repeal it thorough normal legislative processes; failing that, they should try to elect those who are like-minded. In the meantime, the government must open, including ensuring that the United States meets its obligations, financial and otherwise. If this requires the White House and the Congress meeting halfway, so be it. It is time to put country before party and politics.


Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Foreign Policy Begins at Home: The Case for Putting America’s House in Order.

H. R. 1771 -- ‘North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2013’

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr1771ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr1771ih.pdf

113TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1771
To improve the enforcement of sanctions against the Government of North Korea, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 2013