Matisak's Blog (A Stamp on the World)

Panetta concerned about a Pakistani doctor arrested for providing intelligence for the raid that killed OBL

matisak — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:41:16 +0000

If Panetta said he is very concerned what can (should) the US do about this?

Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, The Brookings Institution

It exposes the paradox of US Pakistan relations: we are formal allies, yet on critical issues we are going in different directions, and the good doctor got caught between us. More transparency and a clearer understanding of what the relationship is about would have prevented this. Panetta’s insinuation that someone must have known what was going on in the compound only complicates issues.

Over five year almost 100,000 troops would be cut. Will security risks follow?

matisak — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:43:10 +0000

Do you think the security risks will come with the fact the US will have a smaller force or not, and why? Comments by Richard Stoll, Professor of Political Science, Rice University.

The cuts to the US defense budget that Secretary of Defense Panetta announced are significant, but if we look at recent history, they are smaller than they appear. Let’s compare the size of the Army and Marine Corps proposed by Secretary Panetta with the size of these two services in 2001.

Panetta proposes cutting the Army to 492,000. In 2001, the active duty Army was 477,800. The Secretary proposes cutting the Marine Corps to 182,000. In 2001, the Marine Corps had 171,300 active duty personnel. The cuts look large (and in some ways they are) because the ground forces of US military expanded significantly post-9/11 to handle the need to prosecute two wars at the same time. With the ending of US involvement in Iraq, and the coming draw-down in Afghanistan, it makes sense that the US will need fewer ground forces.

Of course, the world is an uncertain place. Although the US does not intend to become involved in either a large-scale ground war or a significant and lengthy nation-building commitment, the same thing was true before 9/11. If there is an unexpected large scale ground involvement, US forces will need to be expanded. But if this does not happen, the ground forces should be large enough to handle things.

The Air Force will be downsized to 54 tactical-air fighter squadrons, but in 2001 they had 82 squadrons. As with the ground forces, the end of Iraq and the draw-down in Afghanistan means that the US will need fewer air forces.

The Navy will have fewer cuts, but this makes sense if the US shifts its focus from Europe to the Pacific and the Middle East. This will require fewer forces on the ground and more of an off-shore presence.

Overall the cuts proposed by Secretary of Defense Panetta are a reasonable response to the change in the world situation. The principle elements of this change are the end of the US combat involvement in Iraq, the coming draw-down in Afghanistan and a shift in focus towards the Pacific and the Middle East. No one can predict the future with certainty and unforeseen challenges to the US may necessitate changes in the size and shape of the military. But for now, the changes make sense.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it…

matisak — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:21:54 +0000

As always, should any member of your team be caught or killed, we will disavow all knowledge of your actions.

Questions:

1. In a way the most interesting part of the Mission Impossible series is the fact that the Impossible Mission Force is the independent espionage agency employed by the US and others. In general, what kind or role the private intelligence companies play in the real world of espionage? Will their role increase in the future?

2. In the movies the IMF team is always warned that if any member will be caught or killed the government will disavow any knowledge of his/her action. Is it something like this common with the real agents or members of special forces?

Answers:

Anthony Glees, Professor, Director, Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, University of Buckingham

1. One answer to this question lies in the meaning of the phrase ‘the real world of espionage’. Increasingly, I suspect, espionage will be cyber-related, that is to say that spying will take place via cyber space and it is within cyber space that counter-espionage will be conducted. The issue then becomes who is going to be best suited to carrying out this work which, like all intelligence activity, consists of collecting data, analysing it and then developing a response. In my view there are currently far too few people within secret agencies with the necessary IT skills to do this work – far too few to collect the data (the data to be mined is absolutely vast) and too few to understand how to respond. It has been striking that in the UK recent examples of those able to penetrate cyber space and cause havoc have included not just hostile or potentially hostile powers (e.g. China or Russia) but also ‘geeks’ individuals, all of them, to my knowledge, males and not females, under the age of thirty and usually under the age of twenty, working alone in their rooms but linked to virtual networks perhaps (the absence of evidence on this score should not be taken as evidence of absence!). Indeed our own cyber agency, GCHQ, makes active efforts now to recruit these ‘geeks’. Given the blizzard of data out there, I would expect our secret agencies to begin to recruit volunteers who won’t be professional spies but ordinary IT wonks. It will be like it was in WW2 when German radio traffic was picked up by a large team of volunteers in Britain who collected it and then passed it on to the secret agencies, allowing all German agents in the UK (or so we are told) to be picked up and for counter-espionage activity against the Nazis to flourish).

As far as the use of armed force is concerned, well, we know from what the US have done in Iraq and Afghanistan that private companies are used e.g Blackwater (often with rather poor results). However, I think the British are far less likely to do this kind of thing because there is a real question of operational control if they do.

What I think we will see (and have already seen in the case of Libya) is armed intervention led by secret intelligence agencies, in the case of Libya by MI6. Here groups composed of intelligence officers from MI6 and the Special Air Squadron, SAS, will intervene to try to prevent Al Qaeda or other terrorist and extremist groups from gaining positions of power which could be used to harm western interests.

Indeed, in July 2010 Sir John Sawers, the head (or ‘C’) of MI6 said specifically this – that in the future there would be no appetite for long slogging matches as in Afghanistan but rather pre-emptive ‘surgical’ strikes against our enemies. The aim would be to prevent long drawn out conflicts. I think he is absolutely right to want to pursue this kind of policy but whether he will be able to do so will depend on many factors – whether Britain is still seen as a major world power, boxing above its weight in the world, a country with global assets and a global reach to protect them. If the UK continues to fight its best friends in Europe, it is unthinkable that Britain will continue to be taken seriously as a major power. Indeed, the UK itself could break up with Scotland seeking independence sooner rather than later and remaining within the EU, perhaps Wales going the same way. The England that would remain would itself be composed of two quite different states – greater London, with a large immigrant population, predominantly Muslim, large wealth but with no ambitions to sustain western values and the rest of England, hardly in a position to do anything at all.

But I don’t see private secret forces developing in the UK, no.

2. It is the case that governments will never confirm or deny the identity of anyone of whom it is claimed that they are an agent of intelligence services and that they will never confirm or deny that a specific operation has nor has not taken place. The view of the British government is, as I’ve put in one of my books, that ‘secrecy is not always a vice, and openness not always a virtue’. Even the most recent history of MI6 published with official support, written by Keith Jeffery, not only stops, effectively, in 1945 (i.e. before the story of Communist penetration of British intelligence took off definitively) but it does not mention the name of any agent who might still be alive and, as far as I can tell, mentions only agents of whom we already know their identity. MI6 will never, ever, disclose the names of its officers or its agents. The same is true for MI5.

Michael Smith writes on defence and security issues for the Sunday Times and New Statesman, Author of various books including - Killer Elite: The Real Story Behind SEAL Team Six and the Bin Laden Raid

1. I think there are certainly companies out there willing to infiltrate other organisations. But private intelligence companies – as opposed to some private security companies or private investigators – have elite reputations that earn them large sums of money from big companies and are unlikely to deliberately involve themselves in anything criminal since that would complete destroy the private intelligence company’s reputation, therefore the company itself, overnight. Private investigators, and in some cases private security firms, are a different matter and there are some of those who are happy to operate illegally.

2. Yes it is very common for intelligence officers or agents, or indeed for members of the special forces, operating illicitly inside foreign countries to be disavowed by their government. This has happened on a number of occasions with British intelligence officers and agents operating inside the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. It happened with the British secret service from immediately after the Russian revolution and continues to this day. If an officer or agent, or special forces member, is operating illicitly in a foreign country they will be warned beforehand, just like the Mission Impossible team, that they will be disavowed if captured. This has certainly happened more recently for example with some of those involved in rendition on behalf of the US authorities. It is of course as much protection for the agent themselves, particularly if they are for example a member of a terrorist organisation who is cooperating with the US or other western intelligence services.

State of the Union: What was it all about?

matisak — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:59:31 +0000

It is an election year and these addresses make for good television, but they seldom change the political landscape.

Questions:

1. Was the address influenced by the fact that this year is an election year? Was it apparent from it?

2. What was the main message of the speech and maybe how did it differ from previous Obama’s SOTUs?

Answers:

Allan Louden, Professor of Communication, Wake Forest Universit

1. Of course, all Presidential speeches are political. Compared to many State of the Union Speeches by presidents seeking re-election – typically a list of accomplishments wrapped in rhetorical flourish – Obama’s speech was “less” political and more in the tradition of customary SOTU speeches – an extended list of policies the President asks the Congress to enact.

And yet the speech was fully political, with loud echoes of his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote, the speech that launch Obama’s national profile, “there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.”

2. The speech scored in comparison to Obama first two SOTU addresses; challenged congress via gridlock, for their politically myopic entrenchment, for this “dereliction of duty”, encased in a message of our troops sacrifice. He enacted a bi-partisan appeal with an eloquence that has largely eluded him the last two years. The appearance of reasoned evenhandedness, often co-opting republican turf, becomes “invisibly” political.

John Pitney, Professor of American Politics, Claremont McKenna College

This speech was more about staying the course than changing the course.

The president gave a classic Democratic State of the Union address, calling for vigorous government action in a variety of areas. But he also made some rhetorical concessions to Republicans. Directly borrowing a phrase from his 2008 opponent, John McCain, he called for an “all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”

The upcoming election was a backdrop. He didn’t mention any of the Republican candidates by name. But when he said that everyone making a million dollars a year could pay at least 30 percent in taxes, everyone thought of Mitt Romney and his 15 percent.

Presidents seldom dwell on painful policy specifics, and President Obama is no exception. He said: “I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.” But what cuts would he make? On that point, he was silent.

These addresses make for good television, but they seldom change the political landscape. The president gave a good speech, but his reelection prospects hinge on the performance of the economy.

Philip Davies, Professor, The Eccles Centre for American Studies, The British Library

The SoU was certainly a statement aimed at this year’s election campaign. To some extent the Republicans have established the ground on which the Democrats can attack them. Gingrich’s remarkable reemergence notwithstanding, it is based on an attack against the rich, who are normally seen as Republican stalwarts, leaving Obama the opportunity to gently join in a debate that is currently damaging only to the Republican party.

It is very difficult to run a strong campaign on the basis that ‘things would have been worse if it wasn’t for my policies’ – but that is just about what Obama is stuck with, and he got those points in… saved the auto industry; stimulus didn’t do as much as hoped, but created 3m jobs … and so on, but of course unemployment remains high, growth remains low, and the electorate doesn’t want to think ‘it would have been worse’, but rather wants (perhaps rather impatiently) there to be a quicker solution.

It seems to me that the unusual outbreak of ‘class war’ within the Republican Party gave the President the opportunity to make his points in an atmosphere where they might get a better hearing. After all, if more than one of the Republican hopefuls claims to be outraged by low levels of tax on the rich, how can the Obama/Democrat/Warren Buffett criticisms along the same lines be considered overly radical? And if the Republican leadership in ths House considers Obama to be a ‘class warrior’, what does that say about the Republican leadership’s considered opinion on Gingrich when the latter is singing from a similar hymn sheet.

The Obama speech was carefully crafted. Tax questions were presented as common sense, not attacks, gains made (including the death of Osama) were steadily listed. Concerns for the future if the Democrats were not the administration were attached to place names and people in key swing states that Obama needs to win in November.

As ever he sounded quite scholarly and in control of his materials, and as ever his agenda was policy (though not health policy, not controversy), but this time definitely for an election audience and, while he still has a very long and hard fight, the divisions evident between leading Republicans had given him an unexpectedly good opportunity to make his points.

Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of North Texas

1. Yes…sort of. The president always engages in a permanent campaign for public support. This may mean support for public policy, at times, but also reelection, at least in the president’s first term. Therefore, any presidential speech, whether in an election year or not, is driven by this pursuit of public support.

Because we want to look at this through the prism of an election year, we can infer that we heard some likely and important elements of his campaign (or issues that he could raise in the campaign), including significant credit claiming for the end of the war in Iraq, successes against al Qaeda, and in Afghanistan. (This was brief, to be sure.)

Still, it was NOT a campaign or political speech. Those will come later, of course. But the president was true to the essence of the SUA, and that is to portray a strong America, to speak in broad visionary terms, while advocating specific policy proposals. This was a presidential address, no question about it. Indeed, if I had no idea that it was a presidential election year, this address would not have cued me that it was.

2. The economy was the message: a strong economy for the future of America, one that is grounded in fairness for broad growth and prosperity. Note that Obama used a good chunk of the speech to remind the American people of the economic mess that he inherited, not that he created. And he was able to highlight some key (however slight) improvements in the economy that are necessary for his reelection bid.

In short, the message was similar to past SUA’s, but the essence of it was different because the president used the SUA to underscore what he hopes will be the agenda for the 2012 presidential election campaign.

China’s one-child policy in Year of the Dragon

matisak — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:48:20 +0000

We can expect a birth jump in Year of the Dragon.

Questions:

1. What do you expect for the one child policy in China? Will Chinese authorities scrap this policy in, let’s say, medium term or not, and why?

2. Should we expect some additional pressure on the one child policy as China enters Year of the Dragon?

Answers:

Yong Cai, Assistant Professor, Sociology, The Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

1. Many in China, public and scholars, have been advocating to revise the 3-decades long one-child policy. In contrast to Chinese government’s rosy claim, the one-child policy creates more serious social and economic problems than what it attempts to solve. The assumptions behind the formulation of this draconian policy are not only outdated but also false. For example, it was reasoned that the only way for China to reach the mighty goal of GDP per capita at $1000 by year 2000 was to limit its total population at 1.2 billion. However, history has shown that while China’s population size was 70 million more than the controlling target, its economy grew at much faster pace. The truth is, with or without the one-child policy, families in China prefer a smaller family, just like what we have observed all across the world. China’s current fertility is now among the lowest in the world, in par with Slovak. Unlike most other countries that adjust their population policies according to situation on ground, Chinese government still insists on imposing this unnecessary but intrusive burden to its own people. Demographic evident is crystal clear that China is on a rapid track of population aging. To ensure a stable demographic future, and in turn a stable social and economic future, China must scrape the one-child policy. While it is impossible to predict exactly when this will happen given the nontransparent nature of policy-making in China, it surely will happen in medium term.

2. As the AP story has made it clear, even with the magic of dragon year, Taiwan’s fertility is only expected to be at 1.2 (children per woman). Be reminded that this dragon year is special by itself. According to Chinese calendar: it is so-called water dragon year that comes once every 60 years. For any population, we should not count on dragon years to lift its fertility whether it comes every 12 years or 60 years.

Gingrich scores big win in South Carolina. How bad is it for Romney?

matisak — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:53:42 +0000

Experts comment on the results of SC primary election.

Eric Ostermeier, Research Associate, Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, University of Minnesota

Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina on Saturday means an unprecedented three different Republican candidates in the modern political era have won the Iowa caucuses (Rick Santorum), the New Hampshire primary (Mitt Romney), and the South Carolina primary (Gingrich).

Gingrich’s win certainly blunts the momentum Romney was enjoying up until one week ago and will increase the attention of voters nationwide on the two upcoming debates held in Florida this week.

However, Romney retains both significant financial as well as geographic advantages over Gingrich in the next five primary and caucus contests in Florida, Maine, Nevada, Colorado, and Minnesota.

Additionally, a bigger piece of the anti-Romney vote will be won by Ron Paul in the Maine, Nevada, Colorado, and Minnesota caucuses, which presents additional challenges for Gingrich.

David McCuan, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Sonoma State University

Ok, so the GOP race has completely changed. And irony in politics is pretty amazing.

Romney was up by 20 points less than a week ago and the nomination was in hands. Now? All bets are off.

Romney has money and resources. Newt has momentum. You can’t beat Big Mo’ BUT…there are big, HUGE problems with Newt as the GOP nominee – IF he is the nominee.

Romney and his staff have imploded not just with the South Carolina results, but with the tax and finance issues and how Romney has handled himself during the debates. They have acted like amateurs, unprepared for releasing critical financial records. These requests are not unexpected or unknown, but the internal dynamics of the Romney campaign have been such that utter chaos has reigned, and they are responding to Newt’s campaign, not attacking or directing themselves towards his rhetoric. Romney will have to at least announce a date to release his tax records BEFORE Monday night’s debate.

You can view today’s results as a ‘new day’ for Newt, but really this GOP race is up in the air, with the Big Mo’ behind Newt as we go to a major state (Florida, 27 Electoral Votes in November) followed by Nevada, then a series of caucus states.

What looked like a race looked up and over on 31 January is now a two-person race that lasts until the “Super Tuesday” contests in early March.

A few additional details about tonight:

It was 15 years ago today that Newt Gingrich was reprimanded by his House colleagues as Speaker. What a twist of irony.

Tonight’s exit polls demonstrated many folks identifying themselves as “conservatives” and also making their voting decision t- owards Gingrich for the most part – in only the last 48 hours. That makes the last Thursday debate (#17!) was HUGE for many Palmetto State voters.

Florida becomes the BIG DECIDER in this election as it will break the 1-1-1 tie – Santorum in Iowa; Romney in New Hampshire; Newt in South Carolina.

More irony – the GOP Establishment wants Romney. Last weekend, Christian conservative elites threw their support behind Santorum. Tonight? The grassroots, anti-establishment GOP voter wants Newt.

That makes the debates & the SuperPACs absolutely critical to defining the nature of the narrative going forward.

Interesting ironic number from the exit polls as well from South Carolina – voters in SC saw Newt as ‘more electable’ than Romney. This is the FIRST time this has happened. Yet, Newt’s national negative poll numbers (disapproval numbers) are double his national approval numbers.

That makes for a very interesting race if Newt is the GOP nominee against President Obama.

Steven Greene, Associate Professor of Political Science, North Carolina State University

Well, the consensus here in America seems to be that Gingrich’s rather sizable win has fairly dramatically shaken up the race. What, just a week ago, was seen as a minor hurdle on Romney’s near-inevitable cruise to victory now seems to have given us a clear two-man race that may take a good while yet to sort out. It is also clear, that Gingrich’s strong performance in two South Carolina debates this week proved crucial in him coming from well behind in the polls to trounce Romney on Saturday’s Primary election day. Many Republican voters seem to think he has the best chance to beat Obama, though most experts believe otherwise. Going forward, one still has to give Romney the clear advantage given his huge advantages in money, organization, and support from the Republican establishment.

What to expect in the Year of the Dragon

matisak — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 10:34:37 +0000

Happy New Year of the Dragon!

Neil Somerville, Author of Your Chinese Horoscope

The Year of the Dragon is a year full of energy, enthusiasm and for grand new schemes. New projects will be started, ambtious ideas put forward – especially with elections held in several major countries around the world – and with positive steps taken to address some major problems and troubled regions. This will be a year when many changes take place or are suggested.

The London Olympics too will provide some weeks of excitement and colour to 2012.

This is also a year for action and making things happen. As a result, many will consider starting a family, especially as Dragon children are born under the sign of luck, and with love and the family being important and special this year.

The Dragon year is one of opportunity, involvement and working hard to make those dreams come true.

Does Mitt Romney live in a fantasy world?

matisak — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:41:54 +0000

Comments by David McCuan, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Sonoma State University.

The last 48 to 72 hours of the GOP primary are witness to some extraordinary events.

First, if Mitt Romney thought he could run for president and NOT release his personal income tax returns or do so at his own pace and his own choosing, he and his aides are living in a fantasy world. The fact that the personal tax issue seems to have not been vetted or had a response plan developed by his army of consultants and staffers is a stunning sight to behold. The Romney campaign entered a free fall period between the Sunday and Thursday debates – debates #16 and #17.

Second, if Newt Gingrich and conservatives think that the skeletons of more than 30 years in public life will not dog him for the rest of his days as a contender and possibly nominee for the GOP, he and his team are smoking something. Newt has more skeletons in his closet than we see during Halloween.

This means that the South Carolina is HUGE as we move forward. If Romney wins, but the spread between him and Gingrich is less than 8 points, we have a real race.

If Santorum is able to surge forward, pushing Romney down to third place (much less likely), then the race will carry far beyond the next two contests in Florida and Nevada. Romney has a strong ground game and absentee efforts in both states. If Gingrich surges in the “first in the South primary” (South Carolina), his operation faces a strong set of challenges as we move to the next contests.

If we set this up in a macro perspective, this past week is witness to some huge developments. Between Sunday’s debate and the Thursday night debate, Gingrich surged in polls in the Palmetto State (SC). BUT, internal Romney campaign polls are showing more dismal returns or a dip in support. Romney needs to blunt the bleeding and hold on if he hopes to lock this thing up by the end of January.

In addition, three major polls this week noted the demise of Independent voters’ support of President Obama and the Democrats. This is a huge issue for re-election and also a huge variable for any GOP hopes for the White House.

Paying close attention to that Independent vote as we move forward to November becomes a critical variable as the GOP primary moves on and the Obama sharpens its message to appeal to the Independent voters that elect the next president.

Gay rights: Serious issue in US presidential campaign?

matisak — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:51:33 +0000

Probably not.

Questions:

1. How important will be the gay rights issue in the campaign, especially in the presidential campaign after we will know the name of the GOP nominee?

2. As don’t ask, don’t tell policy was repealed do you think it is a significant advantage for Obama in terms of support from the LGBT community?

3. Just image one of the candidates will endorse same sex marriages, will it make him less or more electable?

Answers:

Kenneth Wald, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of Florida

1. At this point, I assume that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee against President Obama.I don’t think Mitt Romney has any incentive to try to mobilize social conservatives around the issue of gay rights. He has never been particularly concerned about social issues and, as governor, allowed gay marriage to become law despite his personal opposition. So if he brings the issue up, it will remind the social conservatives just how much they doubt his commitment to their core issues.

2. President Obama should get some additional support from the LGBT community because he allowed don’t ask, don’t tell to be repealed. Some in the gay community, who have a very tenuous hold on political reality, are reportedly upset that he has been so cautious but such people are likely in the end still to support him. His decision NOT to have the government defend the federal Defense of Marriage act should also earn him support.

3. Opinion data show persuasively that young people are much more open to gay marriage than older voters so, in theory, Obama should benefit from his generally more open position than any of the Republican nominees. However, because young people are less likely to register or to vote, that won’t necessarily mean much additional political support. As I said above, I suspect neither candidate will give much emphasis to this issue during the campaign because it’s unlikely to help them much. The Democrats will probably send out surrogates to encourage support from the LGBT community; I don’t think the Republicans will ever do that. Still, besides the economy, it’s not much of an issue.

Jean Schroedel, Professor, Department of Politics and Policy, Dean of the School of Politics and Economics, Claremont Graduate University

1. I do not think gay rights will be a significant issue in the 2012 election, which will almost certainly hinge on the state of the economy. Historically incumbents do not get re-elected when the unemployment rate is high and the president has an approval rating below 50%. However, this may not hold in 2012 for two reasons. First, the pool of candidates on the Republican side is extremely weak, which may ameliorate the low approval rating for Obama. In other words, voters may not approve of Obama, but the Republicans may look even worse. Second, the US economy is slowly improving and as a result, Obama may succeed in convincing voters that the fault lies with the previous Republican administration.

2. The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” probably will have very little impact. LGBT voters in 2008 gave most of their votes to him, so there is not much room for an increase. The converse is also true (i.e., opponents of gay rights already are not likely to vote for Obama so he is unlikely to lose much support among conservatives for ending the policy.)

3. Endorsing gay marriage is unlikely to occur. It would be a foolish move for a Republican candidate, given he will need strong turnout and support from religious conservatives. And a Democrat, presumably, will have nothing to gain by doing so and it could erode his support among socially conservative working class voters—the so-called Reagan Democrat

Ken Sherrill, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Hunter College , CUNY

My research indicates that gay people are among the most reliably Democratic voters in the electorate – and have been for a long time. Given the sharp differences between the parties, I expect that Obama will get over 75% of the gay vote this November. Obama’s record on gay rights, including DADT repeal will help him to maintain the support of most LGBT voters and will motivate many to contribute time and money to his campaign. The economy will dominate the election and I don’t think that an endorsement of marriage equality will have much of an impact on the vote. (If anything, I think the failure to do so may hurt Obama with some gay voters but will not have much of an impact on anyone else.) I don’t think gay rights will be a major issue in the election. The economy, the stalemate in Washington, and the sense of Obama’s strength or weakness as a leader will dominate the election.

Clyde Wilcox, Department of Government, Georgetown University

Depends on who wins the nomination.

If Santorum wins then it would be a big issue, and an advantage for Obama. Public attitudes have changed a lot in the past decade, and Santorum is clearly on the wrong side of history.

Romney is staking out a position slightly to the right of Obama. It is a reasonable position for Republican voters, but will not set that well with independents, especially younger independents.

LGBT activists were annoyed at how long it took to repeal don’t ask don’ tell. But there are other policy changes, such as partnership benefits at the State Department, etc.

In the end the LGBT community will support Obama, and most younger voters will support him on this issue also.

Young voters and older conservative Christians both use this issue as a test of character, but draw opposite conclusions.

European Parliament: Schulz to replace Buzek

matisak — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:20:02 +0000

Martin Schulz will succeed Jerzy Buzek as the President of the European Parliament. The election is set for tomorrow.

Questions:

1. How efficient, effective was Buzek in his position, what was his brightest hour and what about the biggest failure?

2. What kind of approach we can expect from Schulz, especially in comparison to Buzek?

3. How do you find this deal between the EPP and Socialist groups related to the post of the President of the European Parliament?

Answers:

Steven Van Hecke, Senior Fellow – Research Group European and International Politics, University of Antwerp

1. Being from a large member state, being the first of the so-called new member states and especially being a former PM has helped to increase the prestige of his position. At the same time he hasn’t taken full advantage of it. Internally he might have played his role well but externally – think about the big debates of the last 2,5 years: economic recession, euro crisis, treaty reform – he was almost absent. But the EP wasn’t, fortunately. After all, the EP Group leaders are the real power people, not the President who has – as his title suggests – a more presidential role: representing the EP externally, awarding prizes etc. (Fortunately, his English improved considerably during his term.)

2. Schulz is a former Group leader; Buzek never was (and was never an important figure in the EPP Group or even in the EPP family). Schulz is very important for the Socialist family nowadays (as they lack PMs). I expect him to be more adversarial (vis-à-vis the European Council in particular). It might give tensions inside the EP but it will also spicy the debate. Buzek, by contrast, is much more consensus-oriented. (The real political question is who will succeed Schulz as S&D Group leader.)

3. It is simply a tradition in the EP in which the Liberals took part at some occassions. The problem is the lack of transparency, not the fact that deals are made, I think. You cannot run the EP without the support of the two largest groups. (Which parliament does?) But the real problem is the other tradition: to cut the EP’s legislature in two halfs. This seriously undermines the external prestige and representation function of the EP. Compare with the European Commission President: Imagine that he would be appointed/elected for only 2,5 years and everyone knows he (or she) would never get another term. What can you do in 2,5 years? Not much, I’m afraid.

Emmanuel Sigalas, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Institute for Advanced Studies/Institut für Höhere Studien

1. Buzek has in general kept a low and relatively quiet profile. This is not so unsurprising since his institutional role demands some political neutrality and good relations with all European political groups. In addition, he had to make sure not to disturb the EP’s relations with the Council of Ministers.

2. Mr Schulz is considered a political heavy weight in EU politics. He is well known, vociferous and has strong views that clearly lean towards the left of the political spectrum. The fact that he comes from Germany, probably the most influential country in EU politics at the moment, certainly increases his leverage. In the past he has been openly in favour of taxing international financial transactions and placing some financial market regulations in place. However, I doubt if he will try to promote a radical agenda from his position as EP president. Like the presidents before him, he will have to maintain a neutral stance and he will probably try not to disturb any inter-institutional relations. Nevertheless, I expect his presidency to be politically more interesting than his predecessor’s.

3. With regard to the deal between EPP and PES I have even less to say. It is an inherent characteristic of EP politics to strive for negotiations, bargaining and compromise between the larger European political groups. since EPP and S&D are the two largest EPGs it is an unwritten rule that the president position alternates between them.

In one sentence: There are good reasons to expect Schulz’s presidency to be more stimulating, but no radical change should be expected unless Schulz has a particularly ambitious personal agenda and wishes to stir the EU waters.

Frank Häge, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Limerick

The President of the EP is primarily responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the EP’s daily work, i.e. mainly organisational and administrative tasks. It also represent the EP towards outside actors (e.g. the Council or Commission). How individuals perform those tasks will depend mainly on their skill and personality. I have not heard anything particularly good or bad about Buzek and have not formed an expectation about how Schulz will do that.

Regarding the deal between the EPP and the Socialist Group, this has been a tradition in the EP since the early 1990s. Only once did the EPP strike a deal with the Liberal rather than the Socialist Group. In contrast to most national parliaments in Europe, there is no fixed permanent coalition in the EP that needs to support a government. In this sense, the EP is more similar to the US House of Representatives. At the same time, the EP is often required by the Treaty rules to make decisions by a majority of constituent members. Given the considerable absenteeism in Parliament, this often turns out to be a formidable threshold that can easiest be reached through a grand coalition between the EPP and the Socialist Group, which are the two largest groups in the EP. So in fact, we have a recurrent grand coalition in the EP, and it is not surprising that this coalition makes deals about important appointments to EP offices. In many national parliaments, the government coalition also decides about who is going to preside over the legislature. The main difference in the EP is just that they have decided to rotate the job halfway through the term. This might reflect the fact that the grand coalition is not an arrangement based on a formal coalition agreement, which would allow the post of President to be part of a larger package deal between coalition partners, but forms on an issue-by-issue basis.

Alex Warleigh-Lack, Professor, The School of Politics, University of Surrey

I’d expect a more media-savvy approach from Martin Schulz, perhaps taking us back to the days when Pat Cox was President of the EP. Schulz is able to attract popular attention in a way which may improve the EP’s visibility, at least as far as some elements of the media are concerned. As for policy substance, in principle we could see a small shift to the left, as Schulz is from the PES rather than the EPP. If the French elect a Socialist President latter this year, that may be significant and reinforce any leftward shift. However, the EPP remains the biggest party in the Parliament, and the EP has in general been more conservative in recent years. I would suspect that Schulz’s main wish will be to make himself visible, and the EP a bigger player, in the debates about the EU’s future – which are also likely to be the big story in and out of Brussels in the coming years.

I think the EPP-PES deal on Presidency of the Parliament has had its day. It was useful in ensuring that neither of the bigger parties had too large a grip on the EP’s power, but it makes it almost impossible for able politicians from smaller party groups to grab the prize. I think the time has come for the EP to elect its own President based on a free choice of candidates, chosen by and from among its members – although what really matters is who chairs the most powerful legislative committees, which is also pretty much sewn up by the big two.