First humiliation, now whither US health care reform?

As mentioned in a previous post, Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, is wrapping up four days of meetings here in DC. His main goal was to the press the Obama administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill on the importance of reaching a resolution on Buy American provision in the US stimulus bill, and to nip it in the bud before similar provisions continue to spread to other government spending legislation.

His message was that the clock is ticking: an agreement on a clear exclusion for Canada must be reached before the February 17 deadline by which contracts under the stimulus will have been granted. “By mid-February, if the negotiations are prolonged, then there is not a great deal of value because most of the money will have been spent,” he said.

Myers said he was repeatedly told that Canada was never meant to be the target of the Buy American provisions, but that the issue is low on the administration’s priority list and is therefore moving slowly. So what is the likeliest resolution? Few people expect Congress to vote to amend the legislation. More likely, the process would be a bit more discreet:  It could involve the Obama administration (i.e. the US Trade Representative’s Office) issuing a “notification” to the relevant congressional committees of jurisdiction that negotiations with Canada have concluded in an agreement that Canada is excluded from the provision. This would be done after behind-the-scenes consultation with relevant members of Congress. The theory is that there are lawmakers who would not object to an exclusion for Canada, but do not want to be seen openly voting to water-down the law. At least that’s the theory.

Myers also said he’s learned a thing or two about talking to Americans: “One of the things I’ve learned is how important the terms of the discussion are here,” he said. Rather than talking about the importance of keeping “open trade”, he says he’s learned to say that an exclusion for Canada is ” important to creating jobs in the US by keeping business opportunities open between Canada and the US.” He adds, “trade is a bad word here.”

…Or at least better than the alternative.

Right now the fate of cap-and-trade legislation is looking pretty dicey in Washington. When and if Congress passes health care reform, there may be little appetite left among Democrats for a big controversial bill ahead of the mid-term elections in November. Many observers expect that a general energy bill will pass while climate change legislation will be kicked down the road to an even more uncertain future.

Today, Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, wrapped up four days of meetings in here in Washington, DC with administration officials, congressional staffers, and business associations. He says he came away concerned about what might happen if climate change legislation does not pass. Namely, aggressive unilateral carbon regulation by Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, and a complex patchwork of regulations emanating from state governments, all of which could hit Canadian energy and energy-intensive manufactured exports.

What he heard was, “The EPA would take a more aggressive regulatory stance — but no one knows what that would mean.” Add to that various regulations or taxes coming from the states, and compliance costs to Canadian businesses would become more expensive and complicated, he feared.

“A federal approach to this is preferable for us,” said Myers, emphasizing the need for a coordinated US-Canada approach with a mutually recognized framework and principles.

Ew. This is embarrassing to read, yet morbidly fascinating. This guy really thought he should stay in the presidential race. His wife thought he should stay in, though on some days she allegedly refused to campaign for “that a–hole” or even stay at the same hotel. New York mag has an excerpt from the new book, Game Change, that digs up all kinds of dirt from the 2008 campaigns. Every future candidate should read page five of this excerpt to learn what not to do when a campaign aide confronts you about rumours that you are having an affair.

Listening to today’s congressional testimony by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, two points are becoming clear.

First, the 18-month surge timeline does not have a deadline set in stone. July 2011 is not a deadline for withdrawal, it is a date for “beginning a process” of shifting responsibility for security to Afghan forces, Gates said several times today. When US forces actually leave will depend on “conditions on the ground.” This may or may not placate Republican critics of any “timetable” or “exit strategy.” It certainly will not reassure those Democrats who are skeptical about Obama sinking into a military quagmire.

Second, the target date appears to have been set primarily as an incentive to the Afghans to get their own act together, or Gates put it, “lighting a fire under” the Afghans.  Gates repeated several times that the worry within the administration was that unlike the Iraqis who actively wanted the Americans to get out of their country, the administration is afraid that the Afghans would be happy to have US troops stay indefinitely. Gates said that this wasthe “toughest part” of designing the strategy.

Relevant exchanges below. Continue…

There was a central unresolved tension in this speech and the approach: Obama argued that the war and a troop escalation is necessary to the national security of the US and the world — and raised the specter of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Yet in the next breath, he said the US cannot afford to stay much longer than 18 months. He spoke about “what we can achieve at a reasonable cost.”

He did not give many details on how military tactics will change, or what specific measures will be taken deal with corruption within the Afghan government. I presume we will hear more details tomorrow over many hours of planned congressional testimony from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The bottom line: Obama will add 30,000 US troops over the next 6 months to “seize the initiative” against Al Qaeda (bringing the total US presence to some 100,000 troops) but plans to begin a drawdown in 18 months (July 2011). He did not say when all the troops would leave — that will depend on “conditions on the ground” (a familiar refrain.) He estimates that the surge will cost US $30 billion this year alone. He also announces an enlarged new long-term “partnership” with Pakistan. (A fact sheet from the White House puts the price tag at US $1.5 billion per year.)

So far Republicans such as Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham have been making generally supportive comments about the build-up, if not the exit strategy. The reactions within the Democratic caucus will be more mixed.

Continue…

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery

The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan

United States Military Academy at West Point

December 1, 2009

Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans: I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan – the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my Administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here – at West Point – where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country. Continue…

Argues that NATO’s credibility is at stake:

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”

“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.”

“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”

He’ll be speaking this evening to a wary and skeptical national audience.   I’ll be interested to hear in how Obama defines his goals, and tries to assured Americans that the troop build-up is not open-ended – while at the same time assuring Afghans and Pakistanis that the US will stay to get the job done. I’d also like to hear more about this reported new promised “partnership” with Pakistan — apparently it is to include everything from military aid to major infrastructure projects on water and energy. $$??

Continue…

What they say is true. The Oval Office is smaller in person than it looks on TV. But it’s not that small and still impressive. So Stephen Harper must be pleased with the rarefied photo-op Barack Obama gave him by hosting him there today.

As you walk from the press briefing room through the colonnade facing Rose Garden,

past the Cabinet Room and enter the iconic curved room with the presidential seal on the ceiling, you can’t help but feel the weight of history.

It was hard to tell which particular ghosts were on the mind of outgoing Canadian ambassador Michael Wilson today as his fingertips reverently caressed the top of the elaborately carved Resolute Desk — the same one that young JFK Jr. once used as a hiding place at his father’s feet –  while Stephen Harper and Barack Obama gave their short press availability (one question per county.) I couldn’t take a picture of Wilson’s reverie because prior to being led into the room, we were specifically instructed not to take pictures of the president’s desk or anything that might be on it. I scoped it out for classified documents, or at least a presidential Macbook, but the desk was clear except for a plaque and a ceremonial pen.

Continue…

David Jacobson’s Senate confirmation hearing this morning lasted about 19 minutes by my watch. A Chicago lawyer (specialties included trade, e-commerce, energy, intellectual property) and a prolific Obama fundraiser, he sounded very enthusiastic about becoming ambassador to Canada and knowledgeable, or at least well briefed, on the issues. He noted in his remarks that he has been working in the White House since January, (helping fill jobs in the executive branch). “During that time, I have developed an understanding of how this administration works as well as strong relationships with decision-makers in the White House and across our government,” he said.

I spoke with him briefly afterward. He’s in a hurry to get to Ottawa as soon as he gets confirmed, he said. His family is looking forward to it too. He told me his wife speaks French and his son may be enrolling at McGill.

He’s not supposed to do substantive media interviews until after he is confirmed by the Senate, so he wouldn’t say much more than that. He seemed a bit nervous and made the gaffe of referring to the Secretary of State as “Senator” Clinton. But it really didn’t matter since there was only one senator on the panel to hear him.

Below is his statement and Q & A with Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware. Highlights were his praise for Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and his suggestion that the US could learn from Canada’s more conservative banking practices.

Continue…

I see that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has just scheduled a confirmation hearing for David Jacobson, Obama’s nominee for ambassador to Canada, for Wednesday morning. Given that the Senate adjourns for the summer at the end of the week, this is the last chance to get the ambassador in place before the trilateral North American leaders’ summit in Guadalajara later this month.

Let’s just hope Jacobson hasn’t made any past speeches about “wise Latinas.”

I was away for a few days, so this is a few days late, but I see that just in time for Canada Day, Barack Obama spoke out on Sunday against a provision in the climate change legislation he has been championing. First, he pushed the US House of Representatives to pass the sweeping Waxman-Markey bill, which it did on Friday. After it was passed, he spoke out against a section on carbon tariffs that was causing a lot of worry in Ottawa and in Alberta.

His comments were aimed at the US Senate which takes up the legislation next. The Senate is more conservative and more evenly balanced between Democrats and Republicans than the House, and moderate Democrats have more sway. So there is a chance that the provision may be dropped in the Senate version of the bill. What will happen when the House and Senate versions have to be reconciled  later remains anyone’s guess. A lot of horse-trading will go on. Ottawa may be hoping that the Senate negotiators will have more leverage since they are less enthusiastic about the bill as a general matter. We shall see.

After Obama made his tariff comments, economist Paul Krugman, spanked him.

No one knows the identity or motive of the gunman yet who entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and opened fire on a security guard, injuring him. Two other security guards shot back. Both the gunman and the security guard were taken to hospital.

Watching the unfolding coverage of the attack on CNN is surreal. My 3-year-old goes to pre-school in the adjacent building. The kids have been in lockdown since the incident and are apparently safe and all accounted for.

Security in the building where our preschool is located is tight. All cars entering the parking lot are swept for explosives, which makes the daily drop-off somewhat slow.  Going in and out of the building, we encounter numerous security guards each day. Most of them are sweet, kind and take an interest in the kids. It was one of these security guards who gave my kid his first candy cane last Christmas. Sometimes, we grouse about the repetitive ID checks; too often we take their work for granted. I certainly won’t after this. I am thinking of them all as we wait to hear the prognosis for the security guard who was shot.

UPDATE: CNN is reporting (but DC officials won’t confirm) that the gunman was an 88-year-old white supremacist named James von Brunn.

Obama gave his much anticipated speech to the Middle East today, or as he puts it, to the “Muslim World.” While people will debate the particulars for days to come, I think his main goal seems to have been to set a new tone in America’s relations with the Islamic world — to the extent that such a thing exists (so many different countries, cultures, and issues.)

His overarching goal was to speak over the heads of leaders to people in the Middle East and change their attitudes toward America, to defuse tensions with his personal goodwill, and showcasing his personal ties and understanding of Islam. A good bit of the speech was dedicated to showing respect and appreciation for the religion and civilization.

He said:

“I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

It was multi-faceted and aimed at a variety of audiences, from common people across the region, dictators, clerics, Al Qeda, Hamas, Israelis, Iranians, etc. etc.

A few observations:

- He spoke not of “terrorists” but of “violent extremists.”

- He emphasized his plan to remove combat troops from Iraq and said the US would treat Iraqis as “partners” not “patrons.”

- He seemed to equate the suffering of the Israelis and Palestinians and called for a two-state solution. He said America’s bond with Israel is “unbreakable” but described the situation of Palestinians as “intolerable.”

- Critics disapproved of his choice of Egypt as a venue.

- Critics also point out he dropped the Bush administration’s emphasis on “democracy.”

What Obama said:

“I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.”

Obama’s full speech below the jump.

Continue…