Friday News Roundup — June 28th, 2019
The Fight for Fair Districts; A Risky Business; Family Matters in the Military; Abortion in the Trump Era; Hypersonic MADness; Plus News You May Have Missed
Happy Friday from Washington, where we anxiously await today’s U.S. Women’s National Team game against France. To our oldest ally, we say may the best country win. In other news, Robert Mueller is set to testify before Congress on July 17th, potentially inflaming tensions over Russia between the administration and House Democrats. The first Democratic presidential debates also took place this week, signaling the start of a new phase of the primary and setting us on the long slog to the Iowa Caucuses. The Supreme Court concluded their term yesterday, handing down blockbuster decisions on privacy, gerrymandering, and the census.
In this week’s roundup, we begin with a statement from CSPC President and CEO Glenn Nye on the Supreme Court’s gerrymandering punt. Dan covers the dilemma faced by American companies when conducting business in China. Michael discusses the growing separation between the civilian population and those that serve in the military, including the pros and cons of an all-volunteer force. One of our intrepid interns Stephanie calls on everyone who supports a woman’s right to choose to organize at the local level because of growing threats to the protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade. Joshua talks about future war, discussing the potential revolution brought on by hypersonic weaponry. As always, we conclude with some news you may have missed.
A Statement on the Supreme Court Rulings in the Gerrymandering Cases
Today’s Supreme Court ruling on partisan gerrymandering demonstrates once again that only organized, engaged, reform-oriented citizens have the power to stem the tide of one of the most dangerous trends in American politics. We are supposed to have a system of “one person, one vote,” but partisan gerrymandering — the process by which electoral districts are created to maximize partisan advantage — makes a mockery of that ideal. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to strike down two particularly egregious examples of partisan gerrymandering, in which citizens convincingly argued that their right to politically organize and have their views represented in government were violated by districts that were explicitly drawn to dilute their power. Unfortunately, the Court declined to intervene despite clear signs of partisans putting their hands on the scales of justice, resulting in polarized and dysfunctional government.
This is not the end of the fight for a more responsive and effective government. Partisan gerrymandering is wrong and it is up to citizens to organize and advocate for a system in which the people choose their representatives, not vice versa. In every generation, Americans have struggled to protect their right to have their voices heard and citizens must pick up that mantle. Around the country, grassroots movements are organizing citizen campaigns to take the power to draw districts out of partisan hands. This is particularly important before the 2020 census, when Congressional seats will be reapportioned and new districts drawn. Nine states now have independent commissions that handle redistricting rather than elected officials who stand to benefit from their own efforts; there should be 41 more. If we want to have a government where we have political equality, citizens need to make it happen.
Glenn Nye
President & CEO, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress
Strategic or Transactional?
Dan Mahaffee
In several of these roundups, I have been vocal about the dilemma faced by U.S. businesses in the Chinese marketplace. On one hand, there is the prospect of 1.3 billion customers and access to a market that is rapidly increasing in purchasing power and global importance. On the other hand, there is the price of doing business in China — both in terms of companies’ interests in terms of intellectual property protection and the rule of law, as well as the broader strategic ramifications, especially in terms of high-tech areas of competition.
This week’s headlines covered many of the stories of how U.S. firms were adapting to the Trump administration’s decision to “blacklist” the Chinese technology giant Huawei, thus effectively forbidding U.S. business with the firm. As I have also covered in several of these roundups, Huawei is one of the most egregious examples of a firm that exists to serve Chinese national interests, often at the expense of open, fair competition and network security.
On Tuesday, The New York Times ran a story on how major U.S. microchip firms, including Intel and Micron, had continued to do business with Huawei through methods that allowed the U.S. firms to sidestep the administration’s ban. On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal covered microchip maker AMD and how — albeit before current trade and tech tensions — it partnered with a Chinese firm, closely linked to Beijing’s technology and military apparatuses, in order to avoid bankruptcy. The concern among security experts is that this partnership allowed China to close the gap with the west in the development of advanced x86 microchips, considered the state of the art. If one were to look solely at the firms’ responsibilities to their shareholders and the business sense of these decisions, they make perfect sense. In terms of U.S. national interests, the picture becomes much murkier.
The challenge for any CEO right now is the lack of a clear approach for what the future of U.S.-China relations holds. A significant part of that comes from the Trump administration’s transactional approach to its dealings with China. In 2018, President Trump pulled back from the brink of a similar blacklisting of Chinese firm ZTE, overcoming Congressional opposition to this maneuver. At the time, this was seen as a gesture towards Chinese President Xi to further the nascent trade dialogue. When the Huawei CFO, Meng Wanzhou, was arrested in Vancouver to face extradition to the United States on charges that Huawei violated international sanctions on Iran, President Trump subsequently indicated that the status of that case could be incorporated into negotiations with China. When President Trump said this, it appeared that he had little to no concern about how such comments would change the hearings in Canada from a purely legal matter to a political one, nor how such comments would appear to justify the Chinese detention of Canadians.
Now, as President Trump and President Xi plan to meet at the Osaka G20 conference, reporting indicates that the Chinese have settled on their termsto be presented for relaunching trade talks. From Beijing, it appears that one of the major goals is the removal of Huawei from its blacklist status. President Xi’s recent travel to Pyongyang also suggests that he is trying to demonstrate that he could help President Trump achieve one of his major foreign policy goals as attempts are made to restart the U.S.-North Korea dialogue that ran aground in Hanoi. Chinese leaders are trying to change the focus to near-term transactional matters rather than the future of U.S.-China competition. A return to the status quo ante would benefit Beijing’s policy goals, while allowing President Trump to declare an economic victory in the trade confrontation — with benefits to key constituencies in his base. We won’t likely know whether or not President Trump accedes to these demands regarding Huawei until a readout, or Tweet, following Saturday’s meetings.
For U.S. companies deciding whether to continue to do business with Huawei, and other Chinese companies, there is the ever-present risk that they may take a hardline, only to be undercut by subsequent efforts of presidential, transactional dealmaking. While the hardliners in Beijing have closed ranks to push back against U.S. demands — although in a very reactive posture — the U.S. response has largely failed to explain the need to address not only the current trade imbalances but also the long-term strategic challenge. Vice President Pence’s speech on China policy, originally scheduled for the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, has been delayed a second time so that it would not take place before the G20 meetings.
If we are to address the fundamental challenge of geopolitical and technological competition with China, there needs to be a clear vision for how the United States, and its allies, will proceed forward in reshaping their relations with China. Congress, not the White House, has led the way in addressing some of the strategic ramifications. Already, the bolstered CFIUS process, put in place by Congress last year, has greatly expanded the aperture of what constitutes economic and national security concerns vis-à-vis China. At the same time, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) has facilitated a series of meetings between U.S. intelligence officials and U.S. leaders from business and academia to explain the need for caution in dealings with Chinese counterparts.
If we expect our businesses to better heed these warnings and ensure that the use of technology reflects our values, not Beijing’s, then there needs to be a clearer vision for what the future U.S.-China relationship holds. Perhaps, this will become clearer after the Osaka talks, especially if the rapport between Presidents Trump and Xi takes a downturn. Still, if we cannot muster a strategic vision beyond tit-for-tat, transactional measures, the American consumer will continue to carry the burden of increased tariffs, while our companies are forced to address the unpredictability of a rapidly changing risk-reward calculus for doing business with China.
The Risks of an Isolated Military
Michael Stecher
We stand near the precipice of opening up an nth front of America’s “Long War” that began in Afghanistan in 2001, spread to Iraq in 2003, and has expanded to a broad arc of combat zones from Niger to the Philippines. While President Trump has shown an admirable opposition to “boots on the ground,” he has done little to slow the operations tempo of combat deployments. We should remember that, on Wednesday, two American soldiers were killed in combat with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. One of the two soldiers, Master Sgt. Micheal B. Riley, age 32, was on his sixth tour of duty in Afghanistan in 13 years of Army service.
While the deaths of these two soldiers made for soundbites during this week’s Democratic presidential debates, the lack of public recognition of the ongoing realities of America’s continuing wars reflects a growing gap between American society and the military that stands guard over it. Fears of a growing gap between the military and society are not a new phenomenon. They were present at the creation of the all-volunteer force in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War. They were a common theme in popular culture, especially in the early years of America’s unipolar moment — A Few Good Men, The Rock, even Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. While the cultural moment has moved on from this particular theme, the danger of a military divorced from the greater society have only grown, with risks to both the military itself and the republic at large.
Tomorrow, the United States Air Force will hold a special kind of competition. Gen. James M. Holmes, an F-15 pilot by training and the Commander of Air Combat Command, will have a dogfight against his son, 1Lt. Wade Holmes, an F-16 pilot, on the XBox One game Ace Combat 7. This is just incredibly extra, but it also highlights a growing reality about the United States military [Ed. note, I asked some of the interns and younger staff members here whether “extra” is the appropriate young-millenial / post-millenial term. They assure me that it is]. According to a Pew Research survey, 79% of veterans have at least one immediate family member who served in the military, compared to 61% among the general public. The gap is even wider among people under the age of 30, where only 33% have an immediate family member who wore a uniform. Multiple surveys have found a strong connection between having family members in the military and young people’s propensity to serve. There is evidence that the military service population has become increasingly insular, especially since the beginning of the post-9/11 wars.
The change of the character of the U.S. military to a force that largely consists of long-serving professionals has its benefits, especially for the precise, capital-intensive “American way of war,” but it also has its downsides. For most Americans, who know few members of the military, war is abstract. They do not encounter the highly trained professionals who alternate between six month deployments and six month rotations at home for years on end. This abstraction makes it easier to contemplate employing the military instrument of national power, since most citizens — and by extension their elected representatives — have little skin in the game. This is even true for young people, despite their diminished interest in the use of force abroad: in 2015, a survey showed that 60% of young people supported the introduction of ground troops against the Islamic State in Syria, but 85% would probably or definitely not serve if the U.S. needed additional troops for that campaign.
This combination of admiration of members of the military and distance from them is a key driver of “thank you for your service” culture and standing ovations at sporting events and public gatherings, which many veterans view as well-meaning but shallow. Members of Congress love getting photo ops with deployed members of the armed forces — it allows them to draft on the popularity of the military — but do not show the same interest in ensuring that the employment of those troops is justified or efficacious. Increasing funding for defense is a popular bipartisan past-time; strong civilian control over the military is not.
It is very likely that the United States will never have a president who served in the Vietnam War and no president has had deployed military service since Jimmy Carter’s tour on the USS Barracuda ended in 1952. President Clinton caught flak for being commander-in-chief without having any military service; that expectation appears to have dissipated, but the use of former generals as surrogates on campaigns and active duty service members as props at political events has only grown.
I do not worry that some American Coriolanus or Bonaparte waits in the wings, nor is the U.S. military much risk of becoming praetorian force like the Egyptian Armed Forces or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. As a general statement, however, military leaders have a great understanding of the military instrument of national power, but serve best when someone else integrates it with other tools. At least for most of American history, the inter-permeability of the military and civilian spheres made this less of a concern, but the military has become more geographically and culturally isolated in recent decades at a time of decreasing public faith in other institutions. It can be comforting when senior uniformed military leaders rebuke civilian leaders for doing things we dislike — as when the Joint Chiefs of Staff subtweeted President Trump over his comments after the “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville, VA — but it is a dangerous precedent.
There are no easy fixes to the growing gap between the military and the broader civilian culture, especially since a return to conscription would only trade one set of problems for another. It is an essential problem, however, since the establishment of an intergenerational, politically interested “warrior caste” would be a very bad outcome for the health of our democratic system.
Preserve Her Choice, Preserve Her Voice: Action Needed to Protect Abortion Rights
Stephanie Lizzo
As the 2018–2019 term of the Supreme Court concludes, people are already anxiously anticipating a prominent issue on its future docket: abortion. A recent surge in legislation in “deep red” states seeks to revoke women’s abortion rights enshrined by the landmark case, Roe v. Wade. Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi recently passed “heartbeat bills” that outlaw abortions after six to eight weeks of pregnancy, at the point when a fetal heartbeat can be detected. Alabama has moved even further to permit an outright ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. These Republican-led states are attempting to leverage the momentum built upon more than 30 years of grassroots organizing that has produced a conservative majority in the Supreme Court that may support a reversal of Roe. It is time for pro-choice advocates to end their reliance on the courts and adopt a grassroots approach to protect abortion rights, a strategy that their opponents have seen succeed at a state level.
We could see women lose their right to choose in a decision that would catapult the country backwards nearly fifty years. If that happens, the power to decide such measures will devolve to states, many of which currently have incomplete or outdated statutes. Consequently, women’s rights organizers must prepare for a post-Roe era; they need to arm themselves with lawsuits and pending legislation in order to fight for what they deem to be the right side of history.
The intensifying divide across the aisle denotes the dramatically divergent undertones coloring the preparation of red and blue states for a future after Roe v. Wade. Republican-led states are approaching the situation as if it was a college graduation: a long-awaited day worthy of celebration. Politicians move legislation restricting abortions as easily as graduates move their tassels from right to left. They applaud each other’s accomplishments and eagerly anticipate what they perceive to be a new chapter. On the other hand, Democratic-led states act as if they are readying themselves for a natural disaster. They are examining their available tools, ensuring all possible protections are preemptively instituted, and, ultimately, hunkering down in case the worst scenario is realized.
Roe v. Wade has encouraged a pervasive complacency among Democrats in blue states. While federal courts have struck down restrictive measures proposed by Republicans, liberal activists have not organized to pass proactive state statutes due to the perceived protection provided by the ruling. The haunting realization that Republicans are legitimately challenging the principles of a woman’s right to choose, however, has catalyzed a long-overdue wave of legislation. In New York, Governor Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act, which guarantees the unhindered right to an abortion prior to 24 weeks; Massachusetts’ Roe Act proposes similar protections. Illinois’s legislature has proposed laws which promise unrestricted access to abortion, even in later stages of pregnancy. Vermont aims to enshrine abortion’s status as a constitutional right, sending the message that the Green Mountain State will not interfere with women’s reproductive rights.
Why have we not seen the same push in legislation by Democrats that we have observed by Republican officials until now? The answer lies in Roe v. Wade’s alignment with the Democratic platform, consequently encouraging a sense of passivity throughout blue state legislatures. An overwhelming majority of Democratic-led states have been content to rely on the ruling as a crutch to shakily prop up their outdated legislation. Conversely, pro-life advocates have actively employed grassroots campaigns for decades in order to continually dispute the verdict. While Democrats are now scrambling to prepare for a post-Roe epoch, Republicans have been organizing since the Supreme Court’s original decision.
Subsequently, it is not enough for a handful of blue states to try to combat the recent tide of ruby-red legislation. Democratic activists instead should mimic their Republican counterparts and utilize grassroot campaigns in order to pass laws that safeguard women’s access to abortions. State-level mobilization of both voters and politicians would provide momentum to implement sustainable protections that ensure the indisputable defense of reproductive rights, regardless of any decision by the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade currently sets a standard for the country, but in the end, it can be overturned: laws are the only way to truly protect an individual’s rights.
The United States is at a crossroads: the reversal of Roe v. Wade would not only allow states unfettered control in the private health affairs of women, but it would perpetuate the idea that politicians in Washington better understand what is best for women and their families: that women must forfeit their bodily autonomy under the directive of the predominantly-male representatives who draft these laws, that a woman’s value resides in her womb. Amid the controversial bills emerging from Republican-led states, we have seen a few Democratic-led states get behind measures that enshrine access to abortion in state laws and constitutions. However, it is vital that all states, led by a newly reawakened grassroots community dedicated to women’s health and agency follow this lead and aim for mobilization within their state governments. Action at the state level should culminate in consistent, comprehensive laws or constitutional amendments that effectively protect women’s rights to abortion even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Activists need to recognize that their immediate action is essential, or else we all may face a bleak future in which women lack both a choice and a voice.
Going MAD for Hypersonic Weapons
Joshua Huminski
Much has been made in recent months about the impact of hypersonic weaponry — weapons that fly in excess of ten to 15 times the speed of sound. These weapons are very much in vogue and on the minds of America’s defense leaders. Michael D. Griffin the Pentagon’s undersecretary for research and engineering, warned that “hypersonics is [sic] a game changer.” Indeed, Russia and China are aggressively developing these weapons and, for once, America appears to be behind the curve. According to Griffin, “in the last year, China has tested more hypersonics weapons than we have in a decade.”
The weapons themselves offer unique capabilities — speed, agility, and accuracy to a degree that outclass current systems in service. In theory, while the weapons could carry nuclear weapons, due to the physics involved, they need not necessarily do so. Impacting a target at 1,150 miles per hour the payload could deliver the equivalent explosive energy of several tons of TNT.
Detractors rightly note that Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) deliver warheads that fly at hypersonic speeds. These payloads are, however, exo-atmospheric in nature, meaning they exit the atmosphere, fly through space, and impact a target on the earth. Hypersonic weapons, by comparison, fly within the atmosphere and can be air- or submarine-launched. Hypersonic weapons could from launch to impact hit targets in a fraction of the time of conventional weapons or event ICBM warheads.
Given the speeds that these weapons fly at and their operational parameters, they would render much of the existing ballistic missile defense systems and current air defense capabilities obsolete. Current systems are not designed to handle targets flying in excess of Mach 10 or 15 or targets that are considerably dimmer than are typically tracked by space-based sensors. General John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command added in March 2018 testimony to the U.S. Senate that “we [U.S.] don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon [hypersonic missiles] against us.”
Taken together, these weapons change the game. Without nuclear warheads, countries could use hypersonic weapons to swiftly strike targets with minimal notice, taking out leadership targets, command and control facilities, mobile ICBMs, or other targets.
This capability fundamentally could upset the balance of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The nuclear balance of power doctrine requires that adversaries know their opponent has a secure second or retaliatory strike capability — in other words, you can hit me first, but I can hit you back after with devastating effect. If, through hypersonic weapons, an adversary can strike in a fraction of the time, critical nodes to disrupt a response capability, it may force countries to consider acting first to prevent losing their assets.
At a policy level, as the above-linked New York Times piece notes, there isn’t much of a discussion of how to manage or govern these weapons internationally. There may never be such a conversation — hypersonic weapons, their unique capabilities aside, may just be treated as an evolution of guided ordnance.
The United States recognizing that it is behind the curve on investment and innovation is moving forward aggressively and allocating several billion dollars toward hypersonic weapons development and deployment. Countermeasure and defensive capabilities will also necessitate considerable investment, likely in excess of the weapons development and deployment itself. Indeed, Dr. William LaPlante of the MITRE Corporation warned that “the defense, in general, is getting harder and more expensive than offense.” Here, a nexus between space-based assets and ground sensors is necessary and may emerge through a proliferated low-earth orbit constellation. Such a large architecture of small satellites could offer a novel means of identifying hypersonic weapons and coordinating their interdiction.
In any case, much remains to be seen. Russia and China have made lofty claims about their own capabilities and, as of yet, it does not appear that any country has fully deployed or fielded an operational hypersonic weapons system. That day is, however, rapidly approaching, and it is critical that the Department of Defense and the national security architecture plan for a future in which extremely prompt global strike is a reality and not solely in the hands of the United States.
News You May Have Missed
Abortion Judgment Overruled in the UK’s Court of Appeals
Carlota Cumella de Montserrat
Nathalie Lieven, a judge from the Court of Protection of the United Kingdom, created an uproar this week when she rules that a women in her 20s had to have a 22 week abortion against her own will, two weeks before she reached the time limit for abortion under the UK law. The pregnant woman’s intellectual capacity has been described to be under her natural age and the Court of Protection is tasked with making decisions on behalf of people lacking capacity. However, her social worker was against the termination as was her mother, who assured the court that she would take care of the baby. The judge declared that “for the state to order a woman to have a termination where she doesn’t want it, is an immense intrusion.” But she also claimed to be acting in the “woman’s best interests”. The pregnant woman’s mother took the decision to the Court of Appeals, where three judges overturned Lieven’s decision (allowing the women to carry on with the pregnancy).
Latest Sexual Assault Allegation Against President Draws Little Media or Public Attention
Sarah Weintraub
In an excerpt of her new book, “What Do We Need Men For?” author E. Jean Carroll recounts how Donald Trump assaulted her in a dressing room in the 1990s. President Trump publicly denied the allegation, remarking that he did not know Carroll and that “she’s not my type.” There are now sixteenpublic allegations of assault against the president, but it seems that the more allegations that come out, the less the media focuses on these stories. On Monday, the New York Times admitted it had underplayed the article, in part because it was not the outlet breaking the news, as New York Magazinehad already published the book excerpt. There is concern that these accusations, as they continue to pile on, do not reach the public in the same way. A HuffPost/YouGov survey found that 11% of Americans had heard a lot about the most recent accusations and, equally striking, that 53% of the public surveyed had not heard anything at all about this attention-worthy story.
Zimbabwe Seeks Buyers to Help Alleviate Swelling Elephant Population
Stephanie Lizzo
While residents of Washington D.C. share their sidewalks with squirrels and pigeons, Zimbabwe’s citizens are vying for backyard access with a rather different competitor: elephants. The native elephant population has ballooned to over 84,000, exceeding the country’s carrying capacity by more than 30,000. Zimbabwe’s President Emmerson Mnangagwa has expressed his desire to sell — or even donate — elephants in order to reduce the population size. He hopes that Angola will be a primary buyer, as the country’s wildlife was decimated during its protracted civil war. Although Zimbabwe pledged to reinvest the revenue from elephant sales into conservation efforts, the country’s leadership is petitioning to suspend the international ban on ivory in order to further supplement national income. Mnangagwa maintains that the massive ivory stockpiles in African countries such as Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Zambia could be sold and somewhat paradoxically reinvested to support wildlife preservation. It is evident that African leaders will actively contest the restriction with “ivory-thing” in their political arsenal.
Robots to Begin Taking Over Jobs Sooner Than Expected
Crystal Staebell
The future utopian society (or the robot apocalypse, depending on your point of view) may be quickly approaching, as a recent report released by Oxford Economics stated that machines are expected to replace 20 million manufacturing jobs globally by 2030. In other words, that would mean 8.5% of the global manufacturing workforce could be out of a job thanks to their robot counterparts. At the same time, as the report acknowledges, this robot movement could lead to a generation of new jobs, although in turn this could mean greater levels of income inequality. As the cost of machines decreases, robots become cheaper alternatives to human labor.
Mr. Monopoly invests in Fintech
Madison Howell
Hasbro is keeping up with technological changes by releasing a version of Monopoly on July 1 with a digital banking assistant in lieu of any tangible forms of money. Players simply press a button and talk with the faceless advisor to pay other players and buy or sell real estate. The House of Representatives recently created a fintech task force to “examine the current legal framework for fintech, how fintech is used in lending and how consumers engage with fintech”, but nobody expected these startups to have any effect on children. As technology continues to consume children’s minds earlier and earlier, it is surprising that a technology Congressman Stephen Lynch says comes “with vulnerabilities and the need to reevaluate our consumer protection standards” emerges in a children’s game. Ironically, Monopoly was based on a game meant to teach the problems with unrestricted monopolies in the economy, but one of the biggest problems with technology is that it is hard to regulate as it continues to expand into all markets.
The views of contributors are their own, and not that of CSPC.