Insight and Analysis

This month’s midterm elections dealt a blow to Democratic power across the board. With a transition to Republican control of Congress, President Obama is officially a lame duck president. While this is a major setback to the Obama administration in terms of reaching its goals for immigration reform, energy policy, and building a resilient health care system, trade policy is one area that might actually benefit from divided government.

If history is any indicator, lame duck presidents typically look abroad to create an international impact when their domestic support wanes. Some see President Obama’s influence on the international stage shrinking as well, but the key to preventing this may be a strong leadership role on trade. Over the past six years, the US has quietly been working on major bilateral trade deals that will position the country favorably within the global economy.

President Obama’s trade agenda is one of the most ambitious of any US president – but, ironically, one of the obstacles to its success was the Democratic controlled Senate. The Republican controlled 114^th Congress may well see eye-to-eye with Mr. Obama on America’s trade future.

Earlier this month, President Obama turned his focus to the APEC Leaders Meeting and made his case for the US to pivot to Asia. The prime focus of this shift is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a comprehensive trade agreement that eliminates tariffs and seeks marketplace harmony between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. US Trade Representative Michael Froman sees TPP as a strategic agreement that will “set the rules of the road” for years to come. Mr. Froman claims that TPP will be a game changer as it attempts to set the highest labor and environmental standards in the region and makes its mark as the first trade agreement to incorporate the digital economy. The countries negotiating the TPP represent close to one third of total trade in the world.  

Also still in the works is the current centerpiece of US-EU relations, the proposed transatlantic trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TTIP, like TPP, is one of the most ambitious free trade agreements in the history of the global economy, bringing together the world’s two largest markets. TTIP’s real strength comes from its goal of harmonizing regulations between the United States and European Union in order to cut duplication costs and open markets on both sides of the Atlantic. This is only possible because of the high quality labor, financial institutions, and safety standards that both markets share.

Trade negotiators may be closing in on a deal when it comes to the TPP and TTIP, but that does not mean the debate is over. If TPP negotiators come to a consensus and send a proposed TPP to Congress tomorrow, for instance, the entire framework would likely fall apart. This is because Congress would be able to jump in and make piecemeal modifications to the TPP based on the special interests of the fifty states and hundreds of Congressional districts – leading to the need to renegotiate all of those changes with the partner countries.

In this scenario, members of Congress have the chance to derail negotiations with officials of countries that they never met with. They will not appreciate the compromises that it took to open up Japan’s agricultural industry or the details of what a country like Brunei simply cannot budge on.

That is why all previous major trade agreements have been completed through what is known as Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, which restricts the ability of Congress to modify the substance of agreements. TPA gives Congress a yes or no vote in which members can either accept the whole trade agreement or they accept none of it. And indeed, TPA is a mechanism that every president has had available, and it has been consistently renewed since the days of President Franklin Roosevelt.

If passed by the Republican Congress, TPA will not simply disappear after the TPP negotiations conclude. The authority will be available for several years after its passage, making it an effective tool – and likely a necessary condition – for passing TTIP as well.

That TPA has not been popular among the Democratic leadership was true in the 113^th Congress and will not change in the 114^th. Following the 2014 State of the Union address, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke out against the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act—an act that would reinstate TPA even though during the State of the Union, President Obama spoke of his support for the legislation and free trade agreements like TPP.

In the House of Representatives, Rosa DeLauro and George Miller lead 151 Representatives in opposition to the use of Trade Promotion Authority in ratifying TPP or any future trade agreements. In a letter to the President, the signees refer to TPA as a “twentieth century ‘Fast Track’...[inappropriate] for  21^st century agreements” and believe that “Congress, not the Executive Branch, must determine when an agreement meets the objectives Congress sets in the exercise of its Article I-8 exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade.”

Yet the TPA is not an outdated tool, but rather the only tool that would get the job done. The challenge now is establishing new provisions in TPA that will appease members of Congress, but also maintain the basic yes or no vote structure of TPA.

Now, with Republicans in the majority, their leadership in both chambers vocally supports bipartisan trade agreements and TPA. In a rare agreement with President Obama, after the elections Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell immediately pointed to trade as a source of consensus. “Most of [Obama’s] party is unenthusiastic about international trade. We think it’s good for America,” McConnell said. House Majority Leader John Boehner has been outspoken on his support for TPA, stating that “it means making it easier for our workers, including the 1.4 million Ohioans whose jobs depend on trade, to be able to compete with China and the world’s growing economies.”

The most likely scenario for the passage of TPA and thus the completion of TPP and TTIP, is with a new majority in 2015. To this end, the USTR has worked adamantly to educate members of Congress on the benefits of free trade agreements. To date, the USTR has held over 1,500 meetings with Congressional members on TPP alone. The two committees with trade jurisdiction, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee will now be chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI).

When it comes to passing the legislation, Speaker Boehner has solidified his control over the House with at least 12 Republican seats gained. In the House, President Obama and Republicans can court the favor of many Blue Dog Democrats for the extra push. But in the Senate, Mitch McConnell controls 53 seats but needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning he will need to find some Democratic support.

It is increasingly likely that 2015 will be a major year for US trade policy. While President Obama’s hopes of domestic legislation may be on the ropes, and any hope for enduring bipartisan agreement may be illusory, the parties can come together on trade in order to boost US competitiveness and expand the global marketplace.

It appears that the Ukraine crisis has come full circle. Ukrainian parliamentary elections in October gave Ukraine and the world community a brief respite from the images of revolution, war, annexation, and invasion. However, the successful Ukrainian parliamentary elections were followed by illegal separatist elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, which subsequently led to increasing violence in the east of the country.

Despite the nominal cease-fire, clashes have broke out again, throwing the freshly signed ceasefire agreement between government troops and Russian-backed separatists into further doubt. The sources in Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) report that large convoys with large-scale military hardware have been crossing the Russian-Ukrainian border.  Additionally, European monitors have reported sightings of heavy artillery and rocket launchers near the centre of Donetsk city.

These allegations of sending in troops and military equipment to help the rebels have repeatedly been denied by the government in Moscow. But as the death toll mounts and the economy continues to shrink, Russian aggression is casting a shadow on the peace process and denying Ukraine the ability to make decisions regarding its own future.

After the rebel elections were held on November 2^nd, in defiance of the official government in Kiev, both sides accused each other of violating the peace agreement.

Read more ...

Later today, November 20^th, the historic Howard Theater in Washington, D.C. will set the scene for the Global Fairness Initiative’s (GFI) fifth annual Fairness Award ceremony. GFI is a Washington-based NGO founded by Karen Tramontano which works in developing countries – including Ghana, Guatemala, India, Tunisia, and Guinea Bissau – to enable women and marginalized groups to enter the workforce through targeted programs which rely largely on local staff for implementation.

The Fairness Awards are a five year tradition, meant to honor exceptional leaders who have created opportunities for poor and marginalized communities. GFI operates through an integrated leadership approach based on consulting with governments, civil society, and the private sector, and the awardees themselves are selected by a combination of GFI leadership and in-country civil society partners.

This year’s Awards recipients are Robert B. Zoellick, former President of the World Bank Group, Karl-Johan Persson, President and CEO of global retailer H&M, and Nani Zulminarni, the founder of the Program for Women Headed Households in Indonesia (PEKKA).

Read more ...

In the midst of an angry citizenry, crumbling political consensus, and an atmosphere of power-brokering and deal-making, Ukraine has still managed to take important, if hesistant, steps into a new phase of political life. Facing economic collapse, an ineffective state, high levels of corruption, and Russian aggression, on October 26^th Ukrainian citizens headed to the polls to elect members of a new parliament.

The parliamentary election in Ukraine is of great importance, as it will define the country’s ability to follow a democratic, pro-European course. Ubiquitous political campaigns for the twenty-nine parties indicated serious competition and desire for change. And in addition to the reincarnation of many recognizable names, the campaign also featured new heroes of the Maidan: activists, media figures, and battalion commanders who seek an equally glorious political future.

Ukraine’s parliamentary elections happen under a mixed electoral system, which means that of the 450 seats in the Rada, or parliament, half will be proportionally distributed to political parties that receive above 5 percent from all votes. The other half will be filled from single-seat constituencies by candidates not required to reveal their party affiliation. Further complicating matters, the number of seats in the new Parliament may only be 423 because voting did not take place in at least 27 constituencies in Crimea, annexed by Russia in March, and the war-torn east of Ukraine.

Among the positive signs, however, are the presence of more than thirty civil society activists and pro-democracy fighters on party lists. This brings hope for the rise of a new, responsible political elite – even though at the same time it is important to understand from where these newcomers draw their credibility.

Meanwhile, armed clashes and military operations are still ongoing in Eastern Ukraine.

Read more ...

This article is a contribution from James Le Grice, of our network partner Insight Public Affairs, based in London. Find more about them at http://insightpublicaffairs.com/

“Hong Kong will never have to walk alone.” Thus said Prime Minister John Major in the last visit to Hong Kong by a British leader before the colony was returned to Chinese rule in 1997. Referring to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which ensured Hong Kong’s autonomy over its social, economic and legal systems, Major promised that Britain would “pursue every legal and other avenue available” if China failed to uphold the agreement.

Eighteen years after this speech was made, tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens have taken to the streets, defying tear gas and police batons in a month-long protest against Beijing’s plan to vet the candidates for Hong Kong’s leadership election in 2017. Protestors argue that the decision is an attempt to claw back Hong Kong’s unique freedoms and tighten the Communist Party’s control over the island. Beijing argues that the protestors are unpatriotic puppets of “hostile foreign forces.”

Yet, as far as Britain is concerned, Hong Kong is most certainly walking alone. The UK Government has shown very little interest in the pro-democracy uprising save for the occasional brief statement from a junior Foreign Office minister, or non-committal comments of “concern” from Prime Minister David Cameron and his Deputy Nick Clegg. This relative silence led Anson Chen, deputy to the last British governor of Hong Kong, to accuse Britain of abandoning its “moral and legal responsibility” and reneging on its promise to hold China to the 1984 Joint-Declaration.

Britain’s silence reflects a somewhat different pledge made by Tony Blair on the eve of the handover ceremony in 1997.

Read more ...

A recent study by Restaurant Centers Opportunities found that 80 percent of female restaurant workers in the US have been sexually harassed, as well as over half of male workers. Although gender-based violence in the workplace is most common in lower-wage and tipped jobs, it can occur at in any field, and is an increasingly international problem.

In this context, non-profit and public sector groups working on improving labor conditions believe that the International Labor Organization (ILO) could have a critical role to play in ameliorating these risks. In particular, they argue that a potential ILO Convention on Gender-Based Violence would help create international norms to confront the problem and create a base for national-level laws. However, the discussion around this option is still in its infancy.

The ILO is unique among UN agencies for a number of reasons. To begin with, it predates the UN, having been founded after World War I in 1919. Additionally, it has a singular tripartite structure in which each of the 185 member countries sends a representative from the workers, the employers, and the government. The United States, for example, sends the AFL-CIO to represent the workers and the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) to represent the employers. Given that each of the three members in the tripartite structure have an equal vote, approving new conventions requires significant deliberation.

This is because the ILO has a particular protocol for proposing new conventions, known as the Convention Standards Setting Measures.

Read more ...

With US and EU sanctions having little appreciable impact on the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and parliamentary elections in Ukraine setting the stage for a government in favor of Ukrainian unity, many observers are wondering what the next steps must be for Europe, the US, and NATO.

In Washington, the integrity of the Euro-Atlantic security pact and the future of NATO strategy in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has been the topic of a number of high level discussions, as leaders come together to chart a common course. The most recent such dialogue took place at Johns Hopkins University on October 7^th, and featured the thoughts of the Foreign Affairs minister of Lithuania Linas Linkevičius. Lithuania’s role as one of the three Baltic states with significant Russian populations and close proximity to Russia means that its experience is key to understanding how Western leaders must confront the newest challenge to Europe.

Given the nature of the current conflict, Linkevičius largely focused on the ways in which it is possible to strengthen defense cooperation between the Baltics, the United States, and the Nordic countries that also border Russia. At the same time, he stressed other important issues such as energy security and prospects in the Arctic region and the High North, which, due to rapidly accelerating climate change and the pace of natural resource development, pose potential security challenges as well.

The central question, for Linkevičius and others, that ties these issues together is: what are the options for cooperating and advancing a common vision of a Europe “whole, free, and at peace” as originally envisioned?

Read more ...

It’s September once again, and with the end of summer comes the perennial gathering of world leaders at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City. At the same time, the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative this week is advancing the discussion of pressing issues of global development with guests ranging from Fortune 500 CEOs to US President Barack Obama.

The Clinton Global Initiative, or CGI, was founded by outgoing President Bill Clinton in order to bring policymakers, business leaders, NGOs and members of the philanthropic community together, with the aim of fomenting the kind of unscripted interactions that lead to deeper relationships and specific commitments to concrete action. After ten years of work, the theme of the 2014 meeting is “Reimagining Impact” – the effort to improve how CGI’s members measure and assess the success or failure of their projects.

This emphasis on impact evaluation is part of a three year focus on rigorous accountability in the development sphere.

Read more ...

On July 14^th, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto signed into law major new regulations for Mexico’s telecommunications and broadcasting industries.

These are what are known as the “secondary” laws which will implement the original legislation proposed in 2013, and will effect Mexican consumers in myriad ways, including abolishing long-distance phone charges, making it easier for customers to switch phone companies, and punishing firms that enjoy “asymmetric advantages” through a different pricing regime. The government is also now able to break up monopolistic companies – called “preponderant companies” – with over 50 percent market share in any sector.

With these actions, the government is generally seen as attempting to curb the power of Carlos Slim’s empire: America Movil in telecom and that of Televisa in broadcasting. Telmex, which is a subsidiary of America Movil, and Televisa also dominate most internet services in the country. Until recently, America Movil had 70 percent of the mobile market in Mexico and 60 percent of the fixed lines, while Televisa owned over 64 percent of the Mexican television market.

Televisa fought the Mexican Federal Telecommunications Institute’s (IFT) designation of preponderance through the courts; however, they lost that challenge at the end of August.

Read more ...

Despite Scotland’s referendum on independence failing to create a new nation, the September 18^th vote may serve a more significant purpose for Scotland and the rest of Europe. That is because politicians in the United Kingdom’s Parliament pledged, in response to the strong showing of pro-separatist voters, devolution of powers to the regional levels of government in the UK, including Scotland. In many regards, it seems the shakeup could benefit the Scots more in the long run than an actual separation.

Scotland’s referendum vote will have reverberations around the continent because it served as a barometer for what territories like Catalonia, Flanders, and the Basque region can accomplish in a time of increasing interdependence. The gains won by the Scottish referendum have the power to influence Europe’s overall narrative regarding what a country needs to preserve its identity and power in the 21^st century.

During the height of the Better Together campaign, pro-unity politicians pleaded with the Scots, arguing that there would be changes in the relationship. Leading figures like David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown have all signed a resolution to that effect – even though specifics on what exactly the Scots could gain are currently slim. But we can expect that it will be to the tune of greater devolution of taxation and welfare authority to the regional Scottish government. Of course there is no guarantee that this resolution will overcome political gridlock—and some Labour party leaders have expressed their reluctance to get onboard.

Scotland is not the only European region struggling with questions about its governance.

Read more ...