Wow.

President Obama's new Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Austan Goolsbee has gone "TED-ish" in his economic commentary.

Goolsbee's talk is coherent, straightforward and doesn't talk down to folks.

And the production style is more modern than virtually anything I have seen from the White House.

Excellent job Austan.

-- Steve Clemons

Bob Wright has a piece on the New York Times' Opinionator which should be read in full as he provocatively suggests that we take the earnestness out of the pursuit of a two-state peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.

His view that the parties can't get to a two-state arrangement as long as the most radical factions set the terms and temperature in the region rings true to me -- and thus he thinks that quiet, complacent centrists need to be stirred.

I just got this email from Republican House Whip Eric Cantor:

Do You Have Time for a 30 Minute Strategy Call?

Dear Steven,

Will you join me for a 30 minute strategy call on Thursday, September 30th at 4:30 PM?

My colleague in the GOP Young Guns program, Representative Kevin McCarthy, and I would like to discuss with you how we can work together over the next 35 days to take America back. We will be taking questions and suggestions from you. Click here to join us.

We're looking forward to talking with you.

Regards,
Eric Cantor
House Republican Whip

Notice that there is no request for "$5" -- just a request for participation in a "strategy call."

Maybe the Dems are doing this too -- but I certainly haven't been on those lists. 30 minutes are not enough for the kind of list that the GOP probably sent this too -- but it promotes the notion of connection.

Impressive.

-- Steve Clemons

The New York Times yesterday filed a report on India's efforts to force communications companies that rely on encrypted or hard-to-track communications systems, like Blackberry and Skype, to make their technology accessible or risk being banned from the country. This new step is unsurprising given talk in the UAE last month of forcing compliance with surveillance efforts and the disclosure yesterday of plans in this country to require companies to be able to provide clear text of encrypted communications if so ordered by a court.

It is interesting that for all of concerns put forth in the article of potential consequences of this new rule for India -- such as fear of increased government reach, concerns about inadequate privacy protections, and lack of capacity to actually deal with this information flow -- the author focuses on the impact increased pressure on communications companies could have for India's business interests:

The most inflammatory part of the effort has been India's threat to block encrypted BlackBerry services, widely used by corporations, unless phone companies provide access to the data in a readable format. But Indian officials have also said they will seek greater access to encrypted data sent over popular Internet services like Gmail, Skype and virtual private networks that enable users to bypass traditional telephone links or log in remotely to corporate computer systems.

Critics say such a threat could make foreigners think twice about doing business here. Especially vulnerable could be outsourcing for Western clients, like processing medical records or handling confidential research projects, information that is typically transmitted as encrypted data.

"If there is any risk to that data, those companies will look elsewhere," said Peter Sutherland, a former Canadian ambassador to India who is now a consultant to North American companies doing business there.

S. Ramadorai, vice chairman of India's largest outsourcing company, Tata Consultancy Services, echoed that sentiment in a newspaper column on Wednesday. "Bans and calls for bans aren't a solution," he wrote. "They'll disconnect India from the rest of the world."

India certainly does not want to scare away businesses who rely on encrypted communications in a globally competitive marketplace. Yet what is more worrisome about this entire effort is that it represents another example of governments pursuing more and more information without trying to analyze and where necessary reform how that data is actually used.

While it is attractive (and understandable) for governments concerned with their security situation to want to be able to access different means of communication, the allure of more access to data could allow countries like India to acquire more and more information, making it harder to find what they need to break up plots and prevent attacks. This is in part what has happened in the United States, where we have created a massive intelligence bureaucracy devoted in part to taking in as much information as possible, while sometimes not taking steps to process the information more intelligently or effectively.

In the rush acquire data and improve security, governments must continue to evaluate not just what they need but also how they evaluate what they already have, in order to ensure that new efforts to improve security don't just make an already dangerous situation worse.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Many are lauding President Obama's UN General Assembly speech highlighting America's rededicated, slightly shifting course on which countries to focus development aid on -- and which not. The US Global Leadership Coalition, which is having a mega conference this week on the focus of America's international aid agenda, is loudly applauding President Obama and Hillary Clinton for their efforts.

On top of this, the long awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review should be released by the administration any day now -- and while I too think that it's important to promote America's aid budgets, I think that as things look now, the State Department is being applauded too strongly for not achieving as much as it should have in the QDDR process.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was compelling and showed real vision in this talk at the New America Foundation sponsored by the American Strategy Program and the Palestine Note. It's worth the watch.

Special thanks to James Fallows for standing in for me as chair of the event on short notice - and thanks to Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation Middle East Task Force for managing questions and to Fadi Elsalameen of the Palestine Note for co-hosting this with us.

-- Steve Clemons

The violent clashes currently underway in East Jerusalem, sparked by the shooting of a Palestinian man by a private guard protecting Israeli settlers, have once again demonstrated the volatility and hair-trigger tensions in Jerusalem and in the region that can explode at the slightest provocation. Yet even as riot police are dispersing Palestinians in the Old City, direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis continue, President Obama yesterday at the United Nations called for greater international efforts to create a true Palestinian state, and a poll of Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza found that nearly 60% of respondents oppose attacks against Israel, and 54% believed the new round of talks would be beneficial to them (even though nearly 56% said they did not believe the talks would change the status quo).

The New America Foundation American Strategy Program/Middle East Task Force will host Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad from 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm TODAY for a discussion of the state of relations between Israelis and Palestinians, and the difficulties of building a state, its institutions, and its economy while coping with the heavy burdens of occupation and settlements. Registration for this event is CLOSED, but it will stream live right here at TWN.

-- Andrew Lebovich

There are so many layers of geostrategic humor in this clip. Watch -- and just think about it.

Not gonna say more at the moment.

-- Steve Clemons

A giant panda eats a special-made mooncake in Guangzhou, capital of south China's Guangdong Province on Sept. 21, 2010, one day ahead of China's Mid-autumn festival this year. (courtesy of Xinhua; photo credit: Liu Dawei)

While the Mandarins of Washington and Beijing square off over the yuan-dollar exchange rate, China's trade in mooncake vouchers is at its peak today.

Walking around Beijing this week, I have seen evidence that there are indeed mooncakes for sale and gifting everywhere. I've received several bags of mooncakes myself. But as I wrote a short time ago, the currency -- the vouchers -- that one can gift these sugar, butter, bean paste, jelly, and flour treats with seem to far exceed the real number of mooncakes that one would think underlie their value.

Mooncake vouchers may eventually replace the dollar as the global reserve currency. You heard it here first. :-)

On a more serious front, I have been spending a lot of time in China over the last three months -- back and forth between China and a lot of places in the world. I have had my eyes opened about China in surprising ways and am incredibly impressed with the vision that China has for itself and its determination to get there.

There are problems in China -- and concerns about the behavior of a rising state, sort of the Google of Nations today, disrupting some of the polite, more Western norms of the global system.

China expects tough negotiations ahead -- and the rest of the world, particularly the United States, should be prepared for serious arm-wrestling matches with what today is really an adolescent great power with a few thousand years of history in its DNA. America, which is a young country, nonetheless is behaving too much like an octogenerian nation and has to reinvent itself.

I think James Fallows, who just spent three years here, and I are in agreement that America won't get far using China as an excuse for its current malaise -- even though the massive infusion of direct investment from the US into China that has displaced a significant part of the American manufacturing base is a "manifestation of economic lunkheadedness" in the US political and business communities.

America has to take responsibility for its own policy decisions and needs to do the things that rebuild its capacities to innovate, to make things, and to bolster its middle class working families. China is not to blame for maximizing its interests. The U.S. government writ large, in contrast, is guilty of dereliction of duty in how it has managed America's economic portfolio and allowed the financial sector to skim off the work and productivity of the other stakeholders in the economy.

With that thought -- it's a magnificent day weather-wise in Beijing today, the best I've seen yet -- and it should be great for thinking big thoughts and looking at the moon tonight.

Mooncake anyone?

-- Steve Clemons

Before I was able to speak to the themes of the Afghanistan Study Group report of which I was a part at a major foreign policy conference titled the 2010 Global Leadership Forum sponsored by the Royal United Services Institute and the Princeton Project on National Security in London this past week, former UK Ambassador to the United States Sir Christopher Meyer gave a quick outline of the findings and key proposals -- and said "this report tells us exactly what we need to do."

Princeton's G. John Ikenberry praised the report while the Council on Foreign Relations' Stephen Biddle made a principled counter-argument about high national security stakes in Afghanistan and the high consequences if the US and allied efforts at counter-insurgency fail.

I noted at the meeting that Biddle's boss, Richard Haass, had called for an approach to Afghanistan mostly similar to the Afghanistan Study Group -- while my colleagues, Steve Coll and Peter Bergen, were still cautiously on the side of supporting the current COIN strategy, which I am not.

This is the kind of debate that was missing in the build up to the Iraq War -- and it's what is necessary if we are going to be able to "unwind" our position in Afghanistan, as former Senator Chuck Hagel put it.

Also on the UK front, many thanks to Member of Parliament John McDonnell who praised the Afghanistan Study Group report in Parliament (pdf):

HOUSE OF COMMONS -- OFFICIAL REPORT -- PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

MP John McDonnell

Thursday 9 September 2010

"I refer Members to an excellent report produced recently by the Afghanistan Study Group in America. It is entitled "A New Way Forward: Rethinking US Strategy in Afghanistan." The study group includes a range of specialists--ex-military, intelligence experts, regional specialists and people involved in conflict resolution in the past across the world. The report reflects many of the statements that have been made by Members today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher).

The report includes sober analysis of the need for us to enter direct dialogue with participants in the conflict. As many Members have done today, it analyses the war in Afghanistan, describing it not as a struggle between the Karzai Government and an insurgent Taliban movement allied with international terrorists seeking to overthrow the Government, but as a civil war about power-sharing. The lines of contention are partly ethnic, chiefly but not exclusively between Pashtuns, who dominate the south, and other ethnic groups such as the Tajiks and Uzbeks who are more prevalent in the north. The conflict is partly rural versus urban, and of course partly sectarian. As many Members have said, it is also influenced by surrounding nations with a desire to promote their own interests--Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. As others have emphasised, the conflict is interpreted by many in Afghanistan as having elements of resistance to what is seen as a military occupation."

Just keep this in mind: $100 billion in military expenditures alone in a country with a GDP of $14 billion.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague Sherle Schwenninger occasionally prods our team with a provocative "quiz of the day". I thought I'd share this interesting one.

Gang: Which brilliant economist in early 2008 wrote the following?

"Fiscal stimulus, to be maximally effective, must be clearly and credibly temporary--with no significant adverse impact on the deficit for more than a year or so after implementation. Otherwise it risks being counterproductive by raising the spectre of enlarged future deficits pushing up longer term interest rates and undermining confidence and longer term growth prospects...

How large should a program be? I depends on what else is done to help the economy...But a $50-$74bn package implemented over two to three quarters would provide about 1 percent of gross domestic product in stimulus over the period of its implementation....This seems large enough to take some burden off monetary policy and yet unlikely, if properly implemented, to risk substantial damage if the economy proves stronger than expected."

The winner of the Quiz of the Day will be announced at 5 PM.

Sherle

Mankiw? Hubbard? Geithner?

No, Larry Summers.

The quote is from Lawrence Summers' Financial Times piece on January 6, 2008, entitled "Why America Must Have A Fiscal Stimulus."

A couple of things jump out at me. First of all, George Soros has often said that if he is right that a "super bubble" burst during the recent financial crisis then the tools and approach deployed by Summers and Geithner -- who approached the problem conventionally -- would fail.

Secondly, the level of stimulus to move the US economy now seems pathetically trivial compared to the low-economic multiplier drain of $100 billion per year spent on Afghanistan.

-- Steve Clemons

The Washington Post's Karen DeYoung has posted a story titled "Obama Envisions No Major Changes in Afghan Strategy."

DeYoung writes:

Despite discouraging news from Afghanistan and growing doubts in Congress and among the American public, the Obama administration has concluded that its war strategy is sound and that a December review, once seen as a pivotal moment, is unlikely to yield any major changes.

This resolve arises amid a flurry of reports from outside experts and former officials who are convinced that the administration's path in Afghanistan is unsustainable and its objectives are unclear. Lawmakers from both parties are insisting that they be given a bigger say in assessing the war's trajectory.

The White House calculus is that the strategy retains enough public and political support to weather any near-term objections. Officials do not expect real pressure for progress and a more precise definition of goals to build until next year, with the approach of a July deadline President Obama has set for decisions on troop withdrawals and the beginning of the 2012 electoral season.

I don't doubt that DeYoung, a top-connected correspondent, had a key White Official convey to her the message that no change was ahead as some in the national security establishment would like to puncture early a growing bubble of criticism of the Afghanistan War, the conduct of it, and the war's objectives.

But similarly well-placed national security officials on the Obama team have told me that "a debate is coming." They believe that the December review of the current strategy will be a serious exercise and that President Obama is not one to just stick to a course if it isn't working. We'll see.

DeYoung herself depicts growing tensions beyond a facade of resolve and current Afghanistan commitments. She writes:

Beneath the administration's outward calm, nerves have been frayed this summer by the slow pace of military operations and paucity of uncontested gains against Taliban forces. Reports of Afghan government corruption have been unrelenting, as has the climb in U.S. casualties. Troop deaths have more than doubled since Obama took office - more than 330 this year by early September - along with the size of the U.S. force.

At a Monday meeting with his senior national security advisers, Obama displayed "particularly acute impatience" at "really astounding" casualty figures that are far higher than what was anticipated at the beginning of the year, the senior official said.

The near-collapse of the country's leading bank and President Hamid Karzai's attempts to stop U.S.-backed prosecutions of allegedly corrupt senior Afghan officials have overshadowed what the administration sees as signs of progress, the official said. Not only have the controversies opened the door to congressional efforts to condition funding, "you can't fit them into a story that explains to the American people why we're on a path to fulfill our goals," the senior official said.

A recent senior White House official recently went out of his/her way to convey to me that President Obama was not the kind of person to allow himself to be cornered by the military into a bad or ineffective course of action. This person said the President was not cowed by the military and the December review would assemble all the key voices for a genuine review.

The person speaking with Karen DeYoung -- and I can guess who it was -- is engaged in posturing and is "negotiating" in advance. I understand that.

But the White House must be very careful of sending the signal that the December review is fake and the cards are stacked in advance. That would be a terrible loss for the country and this government.

There will be an Afghanistan War debate in December, if not inside the White House -- then pounding on the door.

For those wanting to see one corner of this debate -- though there are many more participaints in this debate coming forward every day with their own proposals and critiques -- read the Afghanistan Study Group Report.

-- Steve Clemons

I just want to give early word that the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program and Middle East Task Force along with the Palestine Note will be hosting Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad for a talk titled "Building Palestine Under Occupation."

This session will be an open, on the record discussion with Prime Minister Fayyad, touching on the future of a Palestinian state, the challenges of building state institutions under occupation, and the state of Palestinian politics.

We expect that Fayyad's comments will reflect on the high stakes Palestine-Israel negotiations underway now.

The event will definitely be oversubscribed and crowded -- so feel free to watch it live here at The Washington Note or the Palestine Note from 2:00 - 4:00 pm on Thursday, 23 September.

-- Steve Clemons

For those interested in an interesting discussion about America's bleak course, China's rise, and global uncertainties -- with some modest moments of optimism here and there -- please enjoy this video segment from the Summer Davos meeting yesterday in Tianjin, China.

I moderated a session with Chinese Institute on Contemporary International Relations President Cui Liru, New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, Japan Liberal Democratic Party Acting Secretary General Taro Kono, Yonsei University political science professor Moon Chung-in, East West Center Director Charles E. Morrison, and US State Department APEC official Kurt Tong.

I will write more about these World Economic Forum meetings -- which were tremendous on many levels, but disturbing when the general take on US prospects are measured -- when I get the first chance.

Now on my way to London to discuss US foreign policy with Princeton's G. John Ikenberry, the LSE's Michael Cox, and others at the Royal United Services Institute. The Afghanistan Study Group report and Obama's foreign policy will be the guts of my talk.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

The big news in Istanbul this week is that Turkish voters approved in a referendum a set of 26 constitutional reforms put forth by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) that fulfills some of the European Union's human rights criteria, while also protecting the party from being closed by the judiciary (as nearly happened in 2008) and providing the executive branch with more power over judicial appointments. The referendum passed with 58% voting in favor.

The result is a big political win for Prime Minister Erdogan's government and constitutes a vote of confidence for the government ahead of next summer's parliamentary elections.

More broadly, the referendum is just another skirmish in the ongoing culture war between the conservative, religious elements of society represented by the AKP and the secular, Kemalist portion of society that is located primarily in Western Turkey and is led by the military, judiciary and the Republican People's Party (CHP).

A few quick thoughts:

-The referendum has been huge news here in Istanbul. Many of Istanbul's biggest streets have been covered in posters that say "Evet" (yes) or "Hayir" (no). Both sides had also set up booths and organized rallies throughout the city, though the pro-government "Evet" crowd clearly had a bigger presence - at least in the densely populated Taksim region where I am staying.

-In a stunning gaffe, opposition leader Kemal Kiliçdaroglu (the most prominent advocate for a "Hayir" result), was ineligible to vote due to a registration error.

-Strangely, nearly everyone in Turkey agrees that the current constitution should be replaced. Even those opposed to the reforms agree that the 1982 constitution, a result of a military coup two years earlier, should be scrapped in favor of a more liberal, inclusive constitution, but the devil is in the details of course and Turkish politics have been too divided for a compromise.

-Most Western leaders - including European Union Enlargement Commissioner Sergio Cantone, President Obama and other European leaders - applauded the result, despite concerns that the process has led to deeper polarization of Turkish politics and that key reforms proposed by the EU were left out.

Finally, TUSIAD's press release on the result is the best piece I have read on this issue and left me sad that its vision seems more like a dream than a reality, at least for now.

The press release appears in full below the fold.

This is a guest note by Ralph Gomory, one of the nation's leading thinkers about technology, innovation, and the productivity health of national economies. Gomory previously served as IBM's Senior Vice President for Science and Technology and subsequently as the immediate past president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

This essay first ran on the Huffington Post, and is the second installation of a two-part series.

Our massive trade deficit is destroying significant segments of American industry and eliminating badly needed jobs. This is happening because we are slow to recognize an unpleasant reality: We do not live in a world of textbook free trade. We live in a world where our trading partner China has chosen mercantilism and is using the full powers of its government to advance its industries in ways that destroy ours.

If we continue to turn a blind eye to this reality we will become a poor nation.

However we can deal with our trade deficit; we can balance trade. We will describe two ways to do this and there may be more.

This is a guest note by Ralph Gomory, one of the nation's leading thinkers about technology, innovation, and the productivity health of national economies. Gomory previously served as IBM's Senior Vice President for Science and Technology and subsequently as the immediate past president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

This essay first ran on the Huffington Post, and is the first installation of a two-part series.

Our nation's continuing massive trade deficits are destroying important sectors of American industry and eliminating desperately needed jobs; yet balancing trade is not even on our government's agenda. This is happening because we are not facing reality, the reality that we are not living in a free trade world but that we are dealing with countries that practice mercantilism.

If we continue to turn a blind eye to this reality, we will become a poor nation.

I've been a fan of the American Academy in Berlin for a long time -- and though I've never been there as a fellow (maybe one day), it is a cool retreat for high quality American thinkers to engage European counterparts in salons, policy exercises and the like.

Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke is the former Chairman of the Academy and ran it in ways that provoked creative policy thinking.

For those in Berlin, mark your calendars now for an important, controversial talk to be given by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize winning investigative correspondent Dana Priest, who will be discussing "Top Secret America: The Rise and Role of US Intelligence since 9/11".

The date is 5 October 2010, 7:00 pm, and I am bummed that I can't be there.

-- Steve Clemons

When John Bolton, who now said he is considering a run for the US presidency, was set to testify in July 2006 before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his failed effort to get the Senate to confirm his nomination as US Ambassador to the United Nations, I got an early copy of his "prepared remarks" for the hearing. These remarks were handed to me as I walked in to the meeting.

Then as Bolton walked in, we were hurriedly given an updated set of remarks. I knew something must have changed -- and I went through the material page by page until I realized that what had been struck was a zinger that Bolton had been saying in the press frequently with regard to the Israel-Lebanon War.

What was struck was this line:

This is a guest post by Anya Landau French, who directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post originally appeared at The Havana Note.

The other day, I participated in a conference call with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman. I was eager to see what he would have to say, ever since the House Agriculture Committee passed legislation to end the Cuba travel ban and ease agriculture trade restrictions back in June. Many Cuba pundits have wondered what Mr. Berman, who has jurisdiction over the travel ban piece of the bill, might do next.

Berman cleared that up in no short order, and candidly expressed his determination to round up the votes he needs to pass the bill, make it available for subsequent floor consideration, embolden the Senate to act, and to provide political cover and encouragement to the Obama administration to use its executive authority to loosen restrictions on travel until the Congress is able to finish the job. This late in the Congressional session, Berman seems to have decided, rightly I think, to use both private and public persuasion to get the votes he needs.

I've long been in Berman's camp when it comes to why the travel ban should end - as he said on the call, "as a matter of principle, this is about Americans' right to travel."

But let's remember why doing travel is important, especially now. At the core of U.S. policy toward Cuba is the linkage established both by law and the declarations of the Obama administration that says, we won't liberalize the embargo unless Cuba reforms its system, such as releasing prisoners. Although Cuba rejects that linkage - as do I, because I think it puts our policy in someone else's hands - the fact is that Cuba did the deal with the Spanish government and the Catholic Church on human rights, it is in the process of releasing all of the 52 remaining dissidents rounded up in March 2003 (27 released so far), and U.S. policy makers should use this moment to incent the Cubans to do more. Actions by Obama and the Congress to open up travel to Cuba would signal back to the Cubans - we see and support what you're doing. Failing to acknowledge the progress being made on the island would further undermine the credibility of the policy.

-- Anya Landau French

For much of the last year, a group of policy experts, scholars and practitioners have been meeting to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, with the hope of of charting a "New Way Forward," for America's longest war.

TWN Publisher Steve Clemons and a select group of others have crafted a report (AVAILABLE HERE) of findings and recommendations for U.S. policy in Afghanistan, which will be released in an event TODAY at the New America Foundation, from 12:00 PM - 2:00 pm.

The event will livestream here at TWN, with Steve Clemons moderating an all-star expert discussion featuring the following:

PAUL PILLAR
Director of Graduate Studies, Center for Peace & Security Studies, Georgetown University
Former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia

MATTHEW HOH
Former Afghanistan-based official with Department of State and US Marine Corps
Director, Afghanistan Study Group

STEVE COLL
President, New America Foundation
Author, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001
Contributing Editor, The New Yorker

BRIAN KATULIS
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

CHARLES KUPCHAN
Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University
Author, How Enemies Become Friends

DARCY BURNER
Director, American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation

ROBERT PAPE
Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
Director, Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism
Author, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
Co-author of the forthcoming, Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It

session chair
STEVE CLEMONS
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation
Publisher, The Washington Note

If you are in Washington and would like to attend the launch event, please RSVP here.

-- Andrew Lebovich