Op-ed piece by Sherrod Brown

TEN years ago this fall the Senate sold out American manufacturing. By a vote of 83 to 15, it established so-called permanent normal trade relations with China, paving the way for that country to join the World Trade Organization. As a result, Chinese imports to the United States fell under the same low tariffs and high quotas as those from countries like Canada and Britain.

Today, though, our trade relations with China are anything but normal. The 2000 agreement’s proponents insisted it would enable a billion Chinese consumers to buy American products. Instead, our bilateral trade deficit has increased 170 percent, largely because China has undermined free-market competition through illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.

Unless the administration takes punitive steps in response to China’s unfair trade practices, the American economy — and the American worker — will continue to suffer.

The old agreement on trade with China was never really about promoting American manufacturing. Rather, it was a cynical ploy on the part of many multinational companies. They lobbied Congress to approve it, promising a boost to American exports; then, once it passed, they closed domestic plants, moved production overseas and sold their products back to American consumers.

As for those billion Chinese consumers? We now know that what the companies were really so excited about was a billion inexpensive Chinese workers.

True, our exports to China have increased. But reporting only exports is like reporting just one team’s score in baseball: the Cubs scoring five runs sounds good, until you hear that the Reds tallied 12.

Indeed, our exports pale in comparison to the torrent of artificially cheap Chinese imports. Economists, including free-traders, estimate that price manipulation keeps Chinese products 40 percent cheaper than comparable American-made goods.

Inexpensive products might sound nice, but we lose 13,000 net jobs for every $1 billion increase in our trade deficit. Our $226 billion deficit with China has meant shuttered factories, lost jobs and devastated communities across America.

And it’s no longer just Chinese bicycles and electronics that are flooding our markets. China will soon make half the world’s wind turbines and solar panels, most of which it plans to export to America. And, as usual, China’s clean-energy industry relies on large government subsidies, in direct violation of international trade laws.

In response, the Obama administration recently accepted a petition, filed by the United Steelworkers under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, to investigate China’s state support for clean-energy exports. If the White House finds that the support violates international trade rules, Section 301 allows it to respond with a range of aggressive measures, including tariffs.

This strategy has worked before: in the 1980s and ’90s, the United States used its 301 authority to combat Japanese and Korean subsidies and trade barriers. Though critics warned of bitter trade wars, the get-tough approach actually led to more balanced trade relationships, and even encouraged foreign investors, like Asian auto companies, to build plants in America.

In trying to get China to play fair, though, Washington has instead relied on rhetoric and moral suasion. It hasn’t worked. Only rigorous enforcement of trade rules by the Obama administration can reverse the harm caused by the permanent normal trade relations agreement.

Congress has a role to play, too: when the Senate reconvenes next month, it should vote, as the House did in September, to expand the president’s authority to impose tariffs on China or any other country that unfairly manipulates its currency.

Many politicians claim they support products “made in America.” But the phrase is more than an empty slogan; it means standing up for American manufacturers. Only by learning the lessons of “normal” trade with China — and acknowledging buyer’s remorse — can we reach a truly balanced bilateral relationship that works for America.

Senator Sherrod Brown

My immediate reaction is to wonder why people can't spend a few years in jail rather than counting on us to rescue them

When I read that quote from Ambassador James Dobbins, a former senior State Department official in this week's Newsweek I paused for a moment to think about it. Full quote in context:

Why were three idiots worth rescue missions by a former U.S. president and a serving U.S. senator? They weren't kidnapped; they weren't hostages. All three knowingly broke the laws of the countries they were in, and, in the process, brought harm to innocents. The pair caught inside North Korea put at risk members of the human-rights network that was helping them with their story. (The two have still to give their version of events; Brent Marcus, spokesman for their employer, Current TV, says the network is respecting their request to have time to reunite with their families.) Yettaw's adventure led to a further 18 months of house arrest for the iconic opposition leader, 64-year-old Aung San Suu Kyi, who has already been confined for 14 of the past 20 years.

"I'm not particularly sympathetic," says Ambassador James Dobbins, a former senior State Department official and now director of RAND's international-security programs. "My immediate reaction is to wonder why people can't spend a few years in jail rather than counting on us to rescue them when they do things that are obviously stupid as well as illegal—things for which we would put them in jail in many cases. I can imagine the State Department grinds its teeth in frustration every time they find a new American who's done something stupid and now requires a former president of the United States go rescue them." Not many get such VIP treatment, of course. There are, according to the State Department, 2,652 Americans in jails around the world. (Many doing time for drug offenses.) Why were these three singled out for heavyweight intervention?

It's interesting that we do leave that many Americans behind and that very few seem to realize that the Logan Act still exists which makes it a felony to US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. Which when you consider since it was first passed in 1799, and it has never been enforced, makes one wonder why it hasn't just been repealed...

America turns red, white and green

Interview that caught my attention that I wanted to point out in a recent New Scientist article done by Graham Lawton with President Barack Obama's science adviser John Holdren. Part of that recommended piece:

On a global level, what needs to happen as we approach the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December?

The industrialised nations need to get their acts together before they can expect the developing countries to come on board. We have historically produced a large part of the problem, although the numbers are shifting. Two things are obvious: the industrialised nations have an obligation to lead, and the developing countries have to join pretty soon, or we're going to be cooked.

I believe that if the US can go to Copenhagen with a specific policy in place, the chances are very good that we can get an agreement in which major developing countries make commitments that will move them onto a declining emissions trajectory. They are still waiting for concrete evidence that the US is going to move, but I think if the US does move, we will see a degree of progress at Copenhagen that will surprise people.

Obama senior aides "self-hating jews"

First the controversy is is that really what was said, as reported by Haaretz on 7/9/2009:

Netanyahu appears to be suffering from confusion and paranoia. He is convinced that the media are after him, that his aides are leaking information against him and that the American administration wants him out of office. Two months after his visit to Washington, he is still finding it difficult to communication normally with the White House. To appreciate the depth of his paranoia, it is enough to hear how he refers to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Obama's senior aides: as "self-hating Jews."

Now it's being denied but almost too late because whether it's true or not true? It's making the rounds of the media, including this New York Times piece by Thomas Friedman and this story in today's Haaretz that makes it appear it is more than just "Bibi" who thinks that way:

While associates of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are convinced that Emanuel is inciting the U.S. president against Israel behind the scenes - and providing the amateurish psychological explanation that he is "a Jew consumed by self-hatred" - people in Washington who disapprove of his conduct don't look for profound psychological motives. Indeed, some sum up their viewpoint simply by saying: "He's a jerk."

With his coarse short-temperedness, Emanuel stands out even in a city like Washington, D.C, about which Obama himself once said, quoting president Harry S. Truman: "They say if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog." Emanuel can begin a conversation with the threat that if any of its contents are leaked to the media, none of those involved will ever see him or anyone else in the White House again, and finish it with an impolite hint that he needs to send an e-mail.

Those who are familiar with his almost obsessive preoccupation with order, his self-discipline and his determination, believe that his behavior is a tactical choice. He has a tendency to be insufferable, but he can cover for that with captivating humor at his own expense. He has a hot temper, but he also has healthy political instincts and an impressive record of successes. This despicable/charming duality was probably best summed up by Emanuel himself when he once said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune: "I wake up some mornings hating me too."

I recommend reading both Friedman's and the Haartez article...

In Iran, questions of election rigging....

A variety of articles I recommend on this story. CNN:

Khamenei praised the large voter turnout at Friday's election, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with more than 62 percent of the vote, and said the result showed Iranians value "resistance against oppressors," the agency reported.

But clashes between police, supporters of the president and protesters opposing Ahmadinejad, dominated the capital Sunday.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi, an opposition candidate many analysts believed could unseat Ahmadinejad, allege the vote was rigged.

Hundreds of regular and riot police were on the streets as civil unrest continued for the second straight day.

But it was non-uniformed activists, on foot and on motorcycles, who appeared to be behind the most violent incidents.

Al Jazeera:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's incumbent president, has defended his disputed re-election at a public rally in Tehran, insisting that the vote was not "distorted" as claimed by his rivals.

The speech was delivered amid reports of arrests of several reformist politicians who supported Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main challenger, and a formal appeal by Mousavi for the cancellation of Friday's vote.

Supporters of the conservative Ahmadinejad, waving Iranian flags and his portraits filled the capital's Vali Asr Street on Sunday to listen to his speech after the authorities declared that he had won a second four-year term by a huge margin over Mousavi.

What makes this interesting is the voter turnout which Mousavi supporters point out would have created millions of votes being counted within a few hours. They are claiming that the results were switched, appearing to believe that it was really Mousavi who had the over 62% majority.

Time is reporting the Iranian regime has cracked.

Even some of the most astute Iran-watchers are taken aback. "I don't think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence,” says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretenses. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wasn't ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose."

The blame game begins in India...

Shortly after the violence started, India started pointing fingers at Pakistan, who denies responsibility for it's nation being responsible for the deaths and injuries in India.

The one group who has claimed responsibility may or may not be involved, since it's not uncommon for groups to try to claim responsibility for acts of terror they did not do, it does make it a scenario where it's not always a given who says they did it, did it. Yet there is also a great deal of evidence that India is home to other Mujahideen groups and as this article in the Times of India points out, Pakistan may not be totally to blame:

The previously unknown group that claimed responsibility for Wednesday's attacks across Mumbai has added to the growing belief that India is confronting a home-grown Islamic militancy.

Recent reports in India state that one of the terrorists has admitted under interrogation that he was trained and sent by Pakistan, how true this will end up being in the days to come we don't yet know. It would not be the first time someone admitted to saying what is want to be heard under interrogation.

There are those who believe that the Indian Mujahideen groups in India are connected to Students Islamic Movement of India. Time pointed out in July of 2008 that:

Finally, the security establishment cannot go on blaming a "foreign hand" for these attacks. The profusion of such attacks within a short time frame cannot have been possible without local recruits. India must now face up to a brood of homegrown Islamist terrorists feeding off popular and growing Muslim resentment toward the purported injustices and atrocities of the Hindu majority. Indeed, the past three terror attacks have been in states ruled by the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party — the Hindu right-wing party.

But parties across the political spectrum have contributed to the situation. Some play on the insecurities of the minority Muslim community to maintain an electoral base; others fan anti-Muslim sentiment for similar reasons. At the receiving end of decades of such politicking and social bias, the Muslim community — which forms 13.4% of India's population — remains impoverished and is increasingly alienated. A commission instituted by the ruling Congress Party–led government found Muslims underrepresented in government jobs and faring badly in social indicators like household income and literacy. "When you have a community that has been brutalized, it is inevitable that there will be a pool of ready recruits," says political commentator Manoj Joshi, noting the anti-Muslim riots in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) in 1993 and similar ones in Gujarat in 2002.

Obama love fest won't last...

This according to the Boston Globe which realistically is true. One of the most unrealistic things I heard stated during the course of the campaign is that other nations would start liking us more based on our President. Considering many of them disliked us under Clinton, and that 9/11 was actually planned when he was in office, it was hard to believe anyone bought that. Some excerpts from the article:

Sure enough, much of the international reaction to Obama's election has been ecstatic. "Legions of jubilant supporters set off firecrackers in El Salvador, danced in Liberia, and drank shots in Japan," the Los Angeles Times reported. Kenya declared a national holiday. South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu exulted: "We have a new spring in our walk and our shoulders are straighter." The Sun, Britain's most popular newspaper, headlined its story "One Giant Leap for Mankind."

For Obama, such worldwide jubilation must be gratifying. He should take it all with a healthy shake of salt, however. Because it isn't going to last.

Antagonism to the United States is as old as the United States. It didn't begin with the current president, unpopular though he is, or in response to American military action in Iraq. Nor is it going to vanish Jan. 20.

In "Hating America," a survey of more than two centuries of anti-American hostility, Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin note that an upsurge of anti-Americanism was already "strong in the Middle East and well under way in Europe" before Bush took office in 2001. In the 1990s, for example, Greeks opposed US support for Kosovo's Muslims, and vented their anger at President Bill Clinton. "Among the epithets flung at Clinton in the mainstream Greek media," the Rubins recount, "were criminal, pervert, murderer, imposter, bloodthirsty, gangster, slayer, naïve, criminal, butcher, stupid, killer, foolish, unscrupulous, disgraceful, dishonest, and rascal."

Then again, considering how many people don't seem to remember their history, maybe it's not surprising that many believed that the reason we were hated was related to George Bush. I remember my father complaining about going overseas decades ago, and not telling people he was even from the US on more than one occasion.

Amar and another interesting Global Post...

As I've written before, I've been following the writings and adventures of Amar C. Bakshi in the PostGlobal series on the Washington Post. Yesterday Amar posted another experience that I recommend as a thought provoking look into how others see the United States this time from Pakistan. It's entitled, American Arrogance -- Or Just Self-Awareness?.

It's a question I have asked myself at times as far as how many US Citizens are more self absorbed with their own self importance rather than taking a larger view. We've discussed here more than once the fact that we place a much higher value on American lives than we do of those of other nations, especially those in the Middle East.

What I found especially interesting was that the knowledge that this self-centered behavior exists in other nations, it just appears that we as Americans seem to get quite a bit more focus on that trait. I think it would be hard to argue it is not in part due to our own behaviors as well as how we are portrayed by the media in other countries.