Protesters disrupt traffic, light fires in France over Macron’s retirement age push


Demonstrators holds banners as they gather on the place de la Concorde near the National Assembly, with the Eiffel tower in the background, to protest after French Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne delivered a speech to announce the use of the article 49.3, a special clause in the French Constitution, to push the pensions reform bill through the lower house of parliament without a vote by lawmakers, in Paris, France, March 16, 2023. (Reuters)

The Associated Press
Published: 17 March ,2023: 

Protests against French President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to force a bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 through parliament without a vote disrupted traffic, garbage collection and university campuses in Paris as opponents of the change maintained their resolve to get the government to back down.

Striking sanitation workers blocked a waste collection plant that is home to Europe’s largest incinerator to underline their determination, and university students walked out of lecture halls to join the strikes. Leaders of the influential CGT union called on people to leave schools, factories, refineries and other work places.

Union leaders were not the only ones angry about Macron’s plan to make French citizens work for two more years before becoming eligible to collect full pensions. Opposition parties were expected to start procedures later Friday for a no-confidence vote on the government led by Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne. The vote would likely take place early next week.

Macron ordered Borne on Thursday to make use of a special constitutional power to push the highly unpopular pension bill through without a vote in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of parliament.

His calculated risk infuriated opposition lawmakers, many citizens and unions. Thousands gathered in protest Thursday at the Place de la Concorde, which faces the National Assembly building. As night fell, police officers charged the demonstrators in waves to clear the Place. Small groups then moved through nearby streets in the chic Champs-Elysees neighborhood,. setting street fires.

Similar scenes repeated themselves in numerous other cities, from Rennes and Nantes in eastern France to Lyon and the southern port city of Marseille, where shop windows and bank fronts were smashed, according to French media.

French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin told radio station RTL on Friday that 310 people were arrested overnight. Most of the arrests, 258, were made in Paris, according to Darmanin.

The trade unions that had organized strikes and marches against a higher retirement age said more rallies and protest marches would take place in the days ahead. “This retirement reform is brutal, unjust, unjustified for the world of workers,” they declared.

Overwhelming streets with discontent and refusing to continue working is “the only way that we will get them to back down,” CGT union representative Régis Vieceli told The Associated Press on Friday. He added: “We are not going to stop.”

Macron has made the proposed pension changes the key priority of his second term, arguing that reform is needed to make the French economy more competitive and to keep the pension system from living into deficit. France, like many richer nations, faces lower birth rates and longer life expectancy.

Macron decided to invoke the special power during a Cabinet meeting a few minutes before a scheduled vote in the National Assembly, where the legislation had no guarantee of securing majority support. The Senate adopted the bill earlier Thursday.

Opposition lawmakers demanded the government to step down. If the expected no-confidence motion fails, the pension bill would be considered adopted. If it passes, it would also spell the end Macron’s retirement reform plan and force the government to resign, a first since 1962.

Macron could reappoint Borne if he chooses, and a new Cabinet would be named.

Macron’s centrist alliance has the most seats in the National Assembly, where a no-confidence motion also requires majority support. Left-wing and far-right lawmakers are determined to vote in favor.

Leaders of the The Republicans have said their conservative party would not back the motion. While some party lawmakers might stray from that position, they are expected to be a minority.

Fiery Protests Erupt Across Paris as Macron Tries to Force Pension Changes

‘DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY’

Lawmakers swore to introduce a no-confidence motion after Emmanuel Macron’s government invoked Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, ducking the need for a vote on the bill.

AJ McDougall
Breaking News Reporter
Updated Mar. 16, 2023 

Stephane Mahe/Reuters

Thousands of people furious with the French government’s plan to raise the retirement age by two years gathered to stage a protest on Thursday, with the demonstrations escalating into clashes with the police and fire-setting after reports emerged that President Emmanuel Macron would ram the reform through without a parliamentary vote.

Inside the National Assembly chamber, where lawmakers had just learned they’d been denied a vote on the measure, equally livid representatives from both sides of the aisle banged on their desks and belted out La Marseillaise, the French national anthem, trying to drown out Prime Minister Élizabeth Borne as she attempted to explain what had just happened—and why.



“We cannot bet on the future of our pensions,” she said from the speaker’s dais, according to CNN. Macron’s deeply unpopular pension bill would raise the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 and tighten restrictions around granting full pensions before age 67.

“This reform is necessary,” she added, barely audible over the jeers.


Pacal Rossignol/Reuters

Borne gave up after less than 10 minutes, The New York Times reported. Opposition lawmakers streamed out of the chamber to angrily denounce the decision to invoke Article 49.3 of the French Constitution, allowing Macron to avoid a vote in the assembly, where he’d had no guarantee of a majority. He’d invoked the constitutional power in a Cabinet meeting just minutes before the vote had been scheduled to be held.

“Today is the first day of the end of Emmanuel Macron’s term,” Mathild Panot, the leader of the left-wing France Unbowed party, fumed to reporters downstairs.

“The government’s use of the 49.3 procedure reflects the failure of this presidential minority,” Charles de Courson, an independent lawmaker, told the BFMTV news channel. “They are not just a minority in the National Assembly, they are a minority in the whole country. The denial of democracy continues.”

Elsewhere in the throng, Marine Le Pen, the head of the far-right National Rally party, expressed the same sentiment. Later, she tweeted, “After the slap that the Prime Minister just gave the French people, by imposing a reform which they do not want, I think that Élisabeth Borne should go.”

Stephane Mahe/Reuters

Opposition leaders on both sides suggested that a no-confidence motion would be brought against Macron and his government on Friday. If successful, it would mark the first such case since 1962. Macron previously survived two no-confidence votes over a budget bill similarly forced through under 49.3 last October, four months after his centrist alliance lost its parliamentary majority.

Outside and across the river Seine, people had gathered in the Place de la Concorde to demonstrate, waving flags, signs, and balloons amid a generally jovial atmosphere. Students marched and called for a general strike. A group of women danced to Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive,” the Times reported, having amended the lyrics slightly: “To the grave for the working class. No to 64 years.” One man sold sandwiches out of the back of his van.

But as night fell, police moved in to clear out the square, and the protests became more chaotic. Jean-Luc Melenchon, a leftist and former member of the National Assembly, told the crowd at the Place that Macron had “gone over the heads of the will of the people,” according to the Associated Press. A fire was lit in the center of the square as officers in riot gear fired tear gas at the crowds. At least 217 people were arrested, Paris police headquarters said late Thursday, according to Le Monde.

Union leaders vowed to maintain their opposition to the pension reform, a deeply sensitive subject in France, with the Confédération Générale du Travail announcing another national day of strikes and demonstrations next Thursday. It would mark the ninth such day in two months, according to the Times.

What's Happening in France? Videos Show Paris Burning in Protest

BY KAITLIN LEWIS 

ON 3/16/23 

Protests have broken out across the city of Paris in response to French President Emmanuel Macron raising the retirement age by two years on Thursday, a controversial decision that sidestepped a vote that was scheduled to occur just minutes later in the National Assembly.

Macron and his proponents argue that the reform, which raised the retirement age from 62 to 64, was necessary to save the country's pension system from going bankrupt. France's lower house of parliament was scheduled to vote on the reform, but Macron invoked Article 49.3, a constitutional provision that allows the measure to be pushed through without a parliamentary vote.

The debate mimics an ongoing discussion in the United States as analysts predict that the country's Social Security program could become insolvent by the middle of the next decade. However, any suggestions to the pension system, including raising the age requirement to access its benefits, have been met with hard scrutiny.

Protesters on Thursday rally against the French government at Place de la Concorde after lawmakers pushed pension reform through parliament without a vote in Paris. According to preliminary reports, at least 120 people were arrested in clashes with Parisian police.

KIRAN RIDLEY/GETTY IMAGES

Videos began circulating on Twitter Thursday evening of protesters clashing with Parisian police forces in response to Macron's decision. French broadcaster BFMTV posted a compilation of videos taken in the Place de la Concorde—a plaza in Paris adjacent to the National Assembly building—that captured several fires ignited in the protests.

Another video posted by the Trades Union Congress, a union federation based in the United Kingdom, shows a large mass of people gathered at the plaza, with fires dispersed throughout the crowd.



According to a report from British broadcaster Sky News, Macron's decision also elicited protests within the French parliament, including some politicians singing the French national anthem and holding plaques reading: "No to 64 years."

The report from Sky News also captured police dressed in riot gear tossing what they labeled as tear gas toward the rioters. Another video from the broadcaster showed police charging at the crowd gathered at Place de la Concorde.

Preliminary reports say that at least 120 demonstrators were arrested Thursday night, according to a report from France Bleu.

In the U.S., some GOP-proposed reforms have included raising the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare from 67 to 70. At the moment, any citizen born after 1960 is entitled to full retirement benefits at age 67.

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders, including President Joe Biden, have accused the GOP of wanting to slash Social Security in its entirety. The topic is shaping up to be a potential defining issue in the 2024 presidential election, with some candidates like Republican Nikki Haley proposing an older age of retirement.

Newsweek has contacted the French Embassy to the U.S. via email for comment.

IN PHOTOS: Fiery protests erupt across France after Macron pushes pension reform

By Sean Boynton Global News
Posted March 16, 2023 


Fiery protests raged across France Thursday night and into Friday morning after President Emmanuel Macron ordered his prime minister to wield a special constitutional power that skirts parliament to force through a highly unpopular bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 without a vote.

At the Place de la Concorde across from the National Assembly in Paris where the legislative drama unfolded, thousands of protesters gathered and lit a bonfire. The demonstrators included members of workers’ unions who have been holding strikes and marches against the pension reform since January.

READ MORE: France’s Macron invokes special power to adopt pension reform without vote

Riot police moved in to clear the area as night fell, sending small groups into nearby streets where they set garbage on fire.

At least 120 people were detained, police said.

Pallets burn as protesters demonstrate at Concorde square near the National Assembly in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and opted to push through a highly unpopular bill that would raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 by triggering a special constitutional power. (AP Photo/Thomas Padilla).

Firefighters put out a fire near Concorde square after a demonstration in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Lewis Joly).

Garbages are set on fire by protesters after a demonstration near Concorde square, in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Lewis Joly).

Police officers clear the Concorde square after a demonstration near the National Assembly in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Lewis Joly).

Protesters stand in a cloud of teargas after a demonstration in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Lewis Joly).

Similar scenes repeated themselves in numerous other cities, from Rennes and Nantes in the east to Lyon and the southern port city of Marseille, where shop windows and bank fronts were smashed.

Radical leftist groups were blamed for at least some of the destruction.

The unions announced new rallies and protest marches in the days ahead. “This retirement reform is brutal, unjust, unjustified for the world of workers,” they declared.

Sanitation workers have been among those participating in the strikes, which have led to piles of garbage in the streets of Paris.

People run from tear gas fired by French riot police during a demonstration in Marseille, southern France, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Daniel Cole).

Protesters march during a demonstration in Marseille, southern France, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Daniel Cole).

A French riot policeman stands next to a broken shop window during a demonstration in Marseille, southern France, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Daniel Cole).

Police advance as protesters light bins on fire during a demonstration in Marseille, southern France, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Daniel Cole).

Macron has made the proposed pension changes the key priority of his second term, arguing that reform is needed to keep the pension system from diving into deficit as France, like many richer nations, faces lower birth rates and longer life expectancy.

The president decided to invoke the special power during a Cabinet meeting at the Elysee presidential palace, just a few minutes before the scheduled vote in France’s lower house of parliament, because he had no guarantee of a majority.

Speaking above the cries of protesting lawmakers in the National Assembly Thursday, Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne acknowledged that Macron’s unilateral move will trigger quick motions of no-confidence in his government.

Marine Le Pen said her far-right National Rally party would do just that, and Communist lawmaker Fabien Roussel said such a motion is “ready” on the left.

Policemen clear the protesters out of the Concorde square after a demonstration near the National Assembly in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Thomas Padilla).

Firefighters put out a fire near Concorde square after a demonstration in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and imposed a highly unpopular change to the nation’s pension system, raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. (AP Photo/Lewis Joly).

Protesters demonstrate at Concorde square near the National Assembly in Paris, Thursday, March 16, 2023. French President Emmanuel Macron has shunned parliament and opted to push through a highly unpopular bill that would raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 by triggering a special constitutional power. (AP Photo/Thomas Padilla).

—With files from the Associated Press

WATCH: Protests in France as pension reform bill forced through National Assembly without a vote

Belgium to become second EU country to recognize Buddhism 

Belgium is expected to officially recognize Buddhism after the federal government approves a draft law on Friday, opening the door to federal funding, official delegates and school classes.

The Belgian Buddhist Union had requested recognition in March 2006. The union estimates the number of Buddhists in Belgium at 150,000. The only other EU country where Buddhism is recognized is Austria.

There are currently six worship services officially recognized in Belgium: the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, the Israelite, the Anglican, the Protestant Evangelical and the Islamic, recognized in 1974.

Buddhism would be recognized as "a non-denominational philosophical organization" alongside organized secularism, recognized since 2002. It would receive federal funding of up to 1.2 million euros.

Once voted by the Parliament, the law will pave the way to the creation of local institutions, to the sending of Buddhist delegates in ports and airports, in prisons, in the army, hospitals, the opening of Buddhism courses in official education alongside teaching of the other worships services.

All Belgian provinces and the Brussels Region would then also have to each finance a local Buddhist centre.

2023-03-17      Source: Reuters   Editor: Zhu Qing

Another Predictable Bank Failure

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank is emblematic of deep failures in the conduct of both regulatory and monetary policy. Will those who helped create this mess play a constructive role in minimizing the damage, and will all of us – bankers, investors, policymakers, and the public – finally learn the right lessons?

JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

NEW YORK – The run on Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) – on which nearly half of all venture-backed tech start-ups in the United States depend – is in part a rerun of a familiar story, but it’s more than that. Once again, economic policy and financial regulation has proven inadequate.

The news about the second-biggest bank failure in US history came just days after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell assured Congress that the financial condition of America’s banks was sound. But the timing should not be surprising. Given the large and rapid increases in interest rates Powell engineered – probably the most significant since former Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s interest-rate hikes of 40 years ago – it was predicted that dramatic movements in the prices of financial assets would cause trauma somewhere in the financial system.

But, again, Powell assured us not to worry – despite abundant historical experience indicating that we should be worried. Powell was part of former President Donald Trump’s regulatory team that worked to weaken the Dodd-Frank bank regulations enacted after the 2008 financial meltdown, in order to free “smaller” banks from the standards applied to the largest, systemically important, banks. By the standards of Citibank, SVB is small. But it’s not small in the lives of the millions who depend on it.

Powell said that there would be pain as the Fed relentlessly raised interest rates – not for him or many of his friends in private capital, who reportedly were planning to make a killing as they hoped to sweep in to buy uninsured deposits in SVB at 50-60 cents on the dollar, before the government made it clear that these depositors would be protected. The worst pain would be reserved for members of marginalized and vulnerable groups, like young nonwhite males. Their unemployment rate is typically four times the national average, so an increase from 3.6% to 5% translates into an increase from something like 15% to 20% for them. He blithely calls for such unemployment increases (falsely claiming that they are necessary to bring down the inflation rate) with nary an appeal for assistance, or even a mention of the long-term costs.

Now, as a result of Powell’s callous – and totally unnecessary – advocacy of pain, we have a new set of victims, and America’s most dynamic sector and region will be put on hold. Silicon Valley’s start-up entrepreneurs, often young, thought the government was doing its job, so they focused on innovation, not on checking their bank’s balance sheet daily – which in any case they couldn’t have done. (Full disclosure: my daughter, the CEO of an education startup, is one of those dynamic entrepreneurs.)

While new technologies haven’t changed the fundamentals of banking, they have increased the risk of bank runs. It is much easier to withdraw funds than it once was, and social media turbocharges rumors that may spur a wave of simultaneous withdrawals (though SVB reportedly simply didn’t respond to orders to transfer money out, creating what may be a legal nightmare). Reportedly, SVB’s downfall wasn’t due to the kind of bad lending practices that led to the 2008 crisis and that represent a fundamental failure in banks performing their central role in credit allocation. Rather, it was more prosaic: all banks engage in “maturity transformation,” making short-term deposits available for long-term investment. SVB had bought long-term bonds, exposing the institution to risks when yield curves changed dramatically.


New technology also makes the old $250,000 limit on federal deposit insurance absurd: some firms engage in regulatory arbitrage by scattering funds over a large number of banks. It’s insane to reward them at the expense of those who trusted regulators to do their job. What does it say about a country when those who work hard and introduce new products that people want are brought down simply because the banking system fails them? A safe and sound banking system is a sine qua non of a modern economy, and yet America’s is not exactly inspiring confidence.

As Barry Ritholtz tweeted, “Just as there are no atheists in Fox Holes, there are also no Libertarians during a financial crisis.” A host of crusaders against government rules and regulations suddenly became champions of a government bailout of SVB, just as the financiers and policymakers who engineered the massive deregulation that led to the 2008 crisis called for bailing out those who caused it. (Lawrence Summers, who led the financial deregulation charge as US Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, also called for a bailout of SVB – all the more remarkable after he took a strong stance against helping students with their debt burdens.)1

The answer now is the same as it was 15 years ago. The shareholders and bondholders, who benefited from the firm’s risky behavior, should bear the consequences. But SVB’s depositors – firms and households that trusted regulators to do their job, as they repeatedly reassured the public they were doing – should be made whole, whether above or below the $250,000 “insured” amount.

To do otherwise would cause long-term damage to one of America’s most vibrant economic sectors; whatever one thinks of Big Tech, innovation must continue, including in areas such as green tech and education. More broadly, doing nothing would send a dangerous message to the public: The only way to be sure your money is protected is to put it in the systemically important “too big to fail” banks. This would result in even greater market concentration – and less innovation – in the US financial system.

After an anguishing weekend for those potentially affected throughout the country, the government finally did the right thing – it guaranteed that all depositors would be made whole, preventing a bank run that could have disrupted the economy. At the same time, the events made clear that something was wrong with the system.

Some will say that bailing out SVB’s depositors will lead to “moral hazard.” That is nonsense. Banks’ bondholders and shareholders are still at risk if they don’t oversee managers properly. Ordinary depositors are not supposed to be managing bank risk; they should be able to rely on our regulatory system to ensure that if an institution calls itself a bank, it has the financial wherewithal to pay back what is put into it.

SVB represents more than the failure of a single bank. It is emblematic of deep failures in the conduct of both regulatory and monetary policy. Like the 2008 crisis, it was predictable and predicted. Let’s hope that those who helped create this mess can play a constructive role in minimizing the damage, and that this time, all of us – bankers, investors, policymakers, and the public – will finally learn the right lessons. We need stricter regulation, to ensure that all banks are safe. All bank deposits should be insured. And the costs should be borne by those who benefit the most: wealthy individuals and corporations, and those who rely most on the banking system, based on deposits, transactions, and other relevant metrics.

It has been more than 115 years since the panic of 1907, which led to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. New technologies have made panics and bank runs easier. But the consequences can be even more severe. It’s time our framework of policymaking and regulation responds.



JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
 a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.

The Austerity Train Wreck

If human error is to blame for the deadly train collision in Greece on February 28, the responsibility ultimately lies with those who devised, defended, and promoted the economic doctrines underpinning the austerity policies that were imposed on the country in the 2010s. Without those polices, this tragedy never would have happened.

Mar 10, 2023

JAMES K. GALBRAITH

AUSTIN – In a flash, the savage destruction of Greece foretold in 2015 (and before) is back in the news, owing to a grisly tragedy on one of Europe’s smallest railroad systems. On February 28, a passenger train collided head-on with a freight train traveling in the opposite direction on the same track, resulting in the obliteration of the lighter, faster passenger train.

According to The Guardian, “the trains were traveling on what appears to be a well-maintained stretch of electrified mainline.” Take a moment to let the irrelevance of that observation sink in. We are talking about a head-on collision. Of course it wasn’t the track.

Was it a “tragic human error,” then, as Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis quickly announced? The stationmaster at Larissa has been arrested and faces a long prison term. How convenient that there is someone to blame.

Who was the stationmaster? Journalist Dimitris Konstantakopoulos reports that he “was a 60-year-old man of limited experience, alone in a position of great responsibility.” The New York Times adds that he had only six months of training.

Why were humans involved at all? Apparently, automated systems to prevent two trains from approaching each other on the same track were not installed. And why not? Evidently, such things are expensive. They add to costs without contributing to revenues. To ensure that such safeguards are in place, the firm hand of regulation must override the profit motive.

Worse, Konstantakopoulos reports that, according to a former director of the Trainose company, “The last system of tele-management of the railways was deactivated in 2020.” Since then, the former director “stopped traveling by train.” Worse still, The New York Timesnotes, “Rail workers say the traffic lights were always red because of years of technical failures. Workers were left to warn one another of oncoming trains only by walkie-talkie.” And the president of the train drivers’ association told the BBC, “Neither the indicators, nor the traffic lights, nor the electronic traffic control work.”

Trainose, Greece’s railway operator, was purchased from the Greek state in 2017 by Italy’s Ferrovie dello Stato. Since the Italian company was the only bidder, we can infer that it got an excellent price. The privateers – excuse me, the privatizers – did just what the profit motive demanded: they cut costs, not only by eschewing safety equipment but also by shedding railway staff. There are only 800 employees today, down from 6,000 in 2010, though there are supposed to be 2,800. Having multiple sets of eyes on the rail line is after all redundant – 99.9% of the time.

So, there was indeed human error. But which humans made the mistakes? Does responsibility lie with the lone stationmaster, or with Trainose (which last year changed its name to Hellenic Train)? The stationmaster is obviously a scapegoat. And since Hellenic Train’s management did exactly what it was required to do, it can hardly be accused of making an error.

How about Mitsotakis? His government has regulatory power that it failed to exercise. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport had a responsibility to upgrade the network, but it did not do so. But that, too, was no error. The failure to regulate was in the service of the private firm’s profit motive. The failure to upgrade was in the service of the government’s austerity program.

What about former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who signed the terms of the 2015 surrender to Greece’s creditors that led to the wave of fire-sale privatizations? Again, this was not done in error; it was the result of treachery, bad faith, and force majeure.

What about those who imposed the terms of austerity, deregulation, and privatization on the Greeks? The International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission – the infamous troika – took effective control of the Greek government in 2010 and again in 2015 and still run the show to this day. They also made no errors. They simply applied the dogma that had been prescribed by economists in the service of creditors. Theirs was victor’s justice, executed precisely as intended.

The human error therefore lies elsewhere. It lies with those who devised, defended, and promoted the economic doctrines that have ravaged Greece, and with the rest of us who went along. We did so stupidly but with self-assurance, smugly accepting that free-market economics is the only option (“there is no alternative”), that regulation is an avoidable burden, and that private ownership is always better than public. Those in positions of power were complacent – if not cheerful – as these doctrines took hold in Greece and around the world.




JAMES K. GALBRAITH
Professor of Government and Chair in Government/Business Relations at the University of Texas at Austin, is a former staff economist for the House Banking Committee and a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. From 1993-97, he served as chief technical adviser for macroeconomic reform to China’s State Planning Commission. He is the author of Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2016) and Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction of Greece and the Future of Europe (Yale University Press, 2016).

The Sense of an Ending

Mar 10, 2023

JAMES LIVINGSTON

Three recent books combine theoretical sophistication and historical method in ways that enable us to rethink majority rule and thus re-imagine the future of democracy. And the most searching of the three calls into question whether that future is compatible with capitalism as we have come to know it.
Martin Wolf, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism (Penguin Press, 2023)
Francis Fukuyama, Liberalism and Its Discontents (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022)
Pranab Bardhan, A World of Insecurity: Democratic Disenchantment in Rich and Poor Countries (Harvard University Press, 2022)

NEW YORK – The great bourgeois revolutionaries who invented modernity, from John Milton to James Madison to Abraham Lincoln, didn’t know they were laying the foundations of capitalism. To be sure, they understood that a money economy – a social system animated by the impending commodification of everything, even labor power – was laying waste to inherited, mostly parochial hierarchies, redefining liberty and making the idea of equality a live option. But they would be appalled by a global civilization in which the market is the measure of all things, where everyone finally has a price and each must buy the right not to die. No one would be more horrified than Adam Smith, the philosopher-king of the Scottish Enlightenment and the first court poet of bourgeois society.


The leading intellectuals of our time, by contrast, know that capitalism as most of us have experienced it is now in its death throes, and that what comes after strongly resembles the mode of production most people call socialism. They know such things because Karl Marx – like Hegel an admirer of Smith – taught them how to understand modernity as that stage of civilization in which commerce would make constant change, transition itself, an everyday fact of life: “All that is solid melts into air,” as the Communist Manifesto put it. Just as capitalism superseded feudalism, so capitalism would somehow, some day, give way to something else, because neither its spirit nor its social content reflected fixed properties of human nature.1

Meanwhile, because the avowed Marxists, at least firebrands like Lenin and Mao, have taught today’s leading intellectuals that the transition from capitalism to socialism would require a revolution, they have learned to fear what seems, especially now, to be an impending if not inevitable future. Their consequent silence on the subject explains why it’s easier for the rest of us to imagine the end of the world than to plan on, and prepare for, the end of capitalism.

But Marx himself wasn’t so sure that capitalism would end with the overthrow of the state, the dictatorship of the proletariat, or even armed struggle. As he saw it, “the abolition of capitalist property from within the bounds of capitalist production itself” was the obvious result of corporate capitalism, founded on the twin pillars of joint-stock companies and modern credit, both of which separated ownership and control of private property. A new “socialized mode of production” was already nascent.

In the United States nowadays, Republicans seem to agree: “woke” corporations and “traitorous” Democrats are imposing socialism – a “radical left” agenda – on the real America, which doesn’t cotton to welfare, public health and education, abortion, gay rights and same-sex marriage, gender pluralism, environmental protection, immigrants, or gun control. All of these policies are of, by, and for the snotty coastal elites and native-born people of color in the cities.

So, as the end of capitalism and the prospect of socialism have obtruded on normal, everyday political discourse, our very own transition question has become more or less unavoidable. Leading intellectuals have responded accordingly, by explaining – or trying to – where the transition might lead and what both the disintegrating past and the impending future have to teach us.
OLD REPUBLICANS

The situation confronting today’s intellectuals is, then, comparable to that which Madison faced in the spring of 1786, when he was reckoning with both the surprising success and probable demise of the American Revolution. Since 1774, when the Continental Congress instructed the colonies to start writing constitutions, the revolution had been animated by local assemblies, town meetings, state militias, and a torrent of constitutional drafts that produced radical experiments like Pennsylvania’s unicameral legislature, a body elected by mere taxpayers (white males only, of course) rather than property-owning freeholders.

The Articles of Confederation were a diplomatic compact of sovereign states so conceived, not a blueprint for a modern nation-state, because there was no central authority that could demand compliance with its policies (the Continental Congress had no monopoly on the force of arms) or overrule laws enacted under the new constitutions. Nor had anyone conjured an identity for “Americans,” a body politic which transcended local boundaries. The States were not yet United.

By the mid-1780s, this dispersal of power among the states had devolved into what Thomas Jefferson called an “elective despotism,” or what Madison perceived, from a more distant intellectual remove, as a dearth of republican legitimacy, that is, a lack of justification for majority rule. His question had become: what, exactly, is the point of insisting on the sovereignty of the people, as against the state or the government (whether embodied in a benevolent monarch, a scrupulous minister, or a duly elected parliament), if the laws they enacted were as destructive of natural right as any tyrant’s arbitrary command?

The two great innovations of the revolution thus far were this unprecedented insistence on the locus of legitimate power “out of doors” and the correlative notion that liberty was impossible in the absence of equality. But what if equality permitted, or even promoted, the tyranny of majorities?

Madison knew that the traditional resources of the statesman – prudence, custom, and reason – offered no answers, so he ransacked the thin, scattered history of republican governments, to see if earlier experiments composed a usable past. To his astonishment, they did not. Every previous republic had tried and failed to escape the corrosive social effects of historical time embodied, literally and metaphorically, in “commerce,” which typically manifested as class divisions and conflict.

At that point, the rights of persons and the rights of property, what Madison called “the two Cardinal objects of Government,” had become the terms of an either/or choice, and the outcome was invariably decided in favor of property by property owners. In every case, “the poor were sacrificed to the rich,” Madison lamented, putting an end to popular government.

How could a republic avoid this fate? Madison’s solution was to enlist historical time – “commerce,” development, and class division and conflict – in the creation and stabilization of republican government, by “extending the sphere” of the polity to take in more diverse populations and interests, and by devising a constitutional structure that made the rights of persons and the rights of property the terms of an undecidable choice. He modified the sovereignty of the people – he divided them against themselves – in order to postpone or prolong the formation of majorities, not to thwart them.

In doing so, Madison made equality the fundamental condition of liberty. It was a radical departure from received wisdom, and it made for the kind of change that was so revolutionary that Americans still doubt and debate it more than two centuries later, almost always by invoking “the founders,” whether reverently or ruefully.

OUR MADISONIAN MOMENT

Martin Wolf, Francis Fukuyama, and Pranab Bardhan have put themselves in Madison’s place, by publishing manifestos that combine theoretical sophistication and historical method in ways that enable us to rethink majority rule and thus reimagine the future of democracy. All three acknowledge that the parasite called neoliberalism has just about killed off its capitalist host by spawning authoritarian alternatives with global appeal. And all three adopt the unfinished American experiment as the template for the new thinking they propose. Each quotes Lincoln to define democracy, and two actually cite Madison to address the possibility of “civic” rather than ethnic nationalism in managing the diversity that inevitably follows from economic globalization.

But Wolf goes much further than Fukuyama and Bardhan, not so much auditioning for Madison’s role as reprising it. His book offers both a brilliant summary of the received wisdom concerning the troubled relationship between democratic politics and free markets – a difficult marriage, as he puts it – and a radical departure that combines unfettered imagination and extraordinary erudition to summon a different, less contentious kind of partnership

.

Fukuyama, who identifies as a right-wing Marxist in the tradition of the Russian-born French philosopher Alexandre Kojève, has written the least ambitious of the manifestos. He aims merely to restate and clarify the claims of “classical” liberalism, then test them against recent criticisms from the left and the right. The result is a “fair and balanced” treatment of the doctrinal triangulation, but one which leaves the reader wondering for most of the book where the author stands.

Indeed, it is only in the book’s last two chapters that the “need to restore liberalism’s normative framework, including its approach to rationality and cognition” is announced as the real agenda. The key word here is “restore.” Fukuyama seems to think that, when compared as theories of governance, the alternatives residing in the various critiques of liberalism just don’t measure up: they’re intellectually inferior as well as practically unworkable – and obviously so. But he acknowledges that the right-wing, ethno-nationalist, religiously inspired alternatives have actual or potential majorities waiting on their enactment.

By this accounting, the right learned its new know-nothing parochialism from the radical left’s critique of liberalism’s “primordial individualism,” from its valorization of particular group experience as against Enlightenment universalism, and from its mistrust of the scientific method that both forms and reflects modern liberal rationality. The middle ground, where classical liberalism survives – barely – as paleo-conservatism, has been hollowed out by intellectual incursions from the left and the right. And even here, only the “traditionalist” variant of conservatism, represented by the likes of Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School, the self-exiled (to Hungary) conservative polemicist Rod Dreher, and Patrick Deneen of Notre Dame, seems to be intellectually alive. Fukuyama won’t let us mistake classical liberalism for modern democracy, but he insists that by enabling free markets, it authorizes autonomous individuals and thus the possibility of a politics informed by equality and the consent of the governed.

Fukuyama’s invocation of Lincoln tellingly concludes his discussion of these “traditionalists,” Vermeule, Dreher, and Deneen, in keeping with the suspicion he shares with them of majority rule as the measure of legitimate governance, and the doubts he shares with them about the strictly utilitarian logic of neoliberalism. Lincoln rejected Stephen A. Douglas’s program of “popular sovereignty,” which allowed the majority of settlers in the federal territories to decide whether slavery would be lawful there, for two reasons. First, it excluded most of the heirs to that frontier legacy of free land, a vast population composed of generations to come. Second, it violated what Fukuyama would call the normative, regulative principle at the heart of the liberal American experiment, expressed in the imperative phrase from the Declaration of Independence: “all men are created equal.”

Lincoln insisted that the South did not have the right to do what is wrong – to enslave human beings by making property of them – regardless of the majorities it could muster in the electorate, the Senate, or the Supreme Court. Fukuyama likewise insists that neither the utopian neoliberals nor the right-wing populists, the true believers in the church of capitalism, have the right to do what is wrong – to suspend the individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, and rationalism inherent in the liberal tradition – even if they represent solid majorities.

A VIEW FROM BELOW

Bardhan is less certain of that legacy, partly because he studies those parts of the world, particularly South Asia, where liberalism was never a birthright because it arrived as a foreign import, a dimension of colonial rule. He is also much more attuned than Fukuyama to the possibility that the centrifugal social logic of classical liberalism fueled the nihilism common to neoliberalism and authoritarian populism. An economist by training and occupation, Bardhan is more interested than Fukuyama the political theorist in the politics of the impending transition from capitalism to social democracy, and more cognizant than Wolf the economic journalist of how inequality registers in populist revolts as cultural resentment.

The great virtue of Bardhan’s approach is that this transition appears as an untidy, ongoing, even measurable process, rather than a distant prospect to be outlined, for now, as a theoretical model. Half of the book is devoted to close scrutiny of the social-democratic possibilities and policies that already reside in and flow from existing practices, in both rich and poor countries (Bardhan, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, was chief editor of the Journal of Development Economics and is an esteemed authority on the political economy of India). In this sense, it usefully complements Fukuyama’s skeletal intellectual anatomy of liberalism; for it proposes that liberalism’s ethical principles – its normative claims – are still as palpable today in our present historical circumstances, in the political ruins we call neoliberalism and populism, as they were at their origin in the seventeenth century.

Bardhan’s most intriguing chapter, “The Slippery Slope of Majoritarianism,” is also the shortest: at only eight pages, it could pass for a footnote. But it’s here that he makes the two claims that announce the book’s originality. On one hand, he suggests that the origins of democracy lie in a welter of competition, either between elites and subaltern social strata or among elites themselves. Both prototypes play out as ideological struggle over civil rights, as per Madison’s “Cardinal objects of Government,” because each party to the resulting social contract had enough leverage to threaten the others’ standing. On the other hand, he fleshes out the idea that such competition has been, and can continue to be, ethnic and/or religious, that is, cultural, both at its source and in its expressions, whether in rich or poor countries. This idea can be read as a corrective or a supplement to Wolf’s emphasis on the broadly economic causes of subaltern resentment and revolt, which have led us to the brink of democracy’s global extinction by majoritarian means.
PERSONS AND PROPERTY

The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism is the most searching of the three books – or any other study of our current condition – because it is the most pointed in asking a contemporary version of Madison’s question, and the most ecumenical in canvassing possible responses that are consistent with the freedoms specific to modern market societies. Wolf’s version of the question could be paraphrased as follows: If markets (“commerce”) are essential to both liberty and equality as we have come to understand them since the advent of capitalism, and if neoliberalism has reduced liberty to an individual’s license to profit from the exploitation of anything, thus blocking the once-broad avenues to equality, what kind of markets would reconcile the rights of property and the rights of persons, and, in so doing, serve the cause of democracy?

The assumption here is of course that majorities are not the sole measure of democracy. As Madison and Lincoln often insisted, only the consent of the governed – their willingness to abide by the laws they have participated in making, directly or by virtue of their citizenship – can ensure the legitimacy required by the modern republican standard of equality before the law. Otherwise, the states that imposed the terrorist yet constitutional and majoritarian Jim Crow regime on Black people in the post-bellum South could be defined as democratic polities.

The age of democratic capitalism, according to Wolf, commenced about 1870 and ended around 1980. By his accounting, then, capitalism has continued to develop since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher dismantled the postwar Keynesian consensus in the West and Mikhail Gorbachev dismantled communism in the East, but democracy has stalled. In fact, capitalism in the West has by now devolved to a baroque, rentier stage (Wolf abjures the label of neoliberalism) recalling the grotesque caricatures of the late nineteenth century, when bloated monopolists were rendered as vampires or cephalopods, all teeth or tentacles. Meanwhile, the growth of democracy has been stunted by the rise of state/authoritarian capitalism in Eastern Europe and Asia (particularly in China), and of angry, ethno-nationalist populism in Britain and the US.

As with Bardhan’s book, the bulk of The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism is devoted to a programmatic outline of ways to reinvent the system, not to “restore” some lost golden age, or to reinstate the first principles of free enterprise, or otherwise to treat the past as prologue to an acceptable, inhabitable future. Wolf is more ambitious than that, and, in view of the actually existing crises he charts so relentlessly and meticulously, from climate change to the con game we know as the banking system, he has no choice. But he cloaks his radical ideas in the persona and language of a centrist, buttoned-down journalist out to save capitalism from its excesses, not to promote revolutionary change.

No one should be fooled by the sheep’s clothing. Like Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, and Willem Buiter, a former chief economist at Citigroup and currently one of the world’s leading authorities on central banking, Wolf thinks that private control of bank assets is an absurdity. Magnified by “elite malfeasance” in every other sector of the globalized economy, this is warrant enough to complete the socialization of private property foretold in the formation of joint-stock companies that separated ownership and control of corporate capital. In effect, he implores us to act on Marx’s insight into the revolutionary possibilities of corporate capitalism – that is, into the “socialized mode of production” it made possible, and now necessary, as the solution to a worldwide crisis of democracy.

This conclusion will no doubt seem ridiculous to most readers of The Financial Times, where Wolf has presided as an associate editor for three decades, sometimes sounding like the cheerleader-in-chief for globalization. But consider his summary of our situation:

“The insecurity that laissez-faire capitalism generates for the great majority who own few assets and are unable to insure or protect themselves against such obvious misfortunes as the unexpected loss of a job or incapacitating illness, is ultimately incompatible with democracy. That is what Western countries had learned by the early to mid-twentieth century. It is what they have learned again over the last four decades. Only autocracy, plutocracy, or some combination of the two is likely to thrive in an economy that generates such insecurity and a polity that shows such indifference.”

Moreover, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism offers a vision of the future that is radical because it gives priority to democracy (the rights of persons) over capitalism (the rights of property). And yet it is also practical, because it enlists markets in the recreation of citizenship. Wolf’s notion of citizenship carries echoes of the classical republican (Aristotelian) kind, because it entails a “positive” definition of freedom: liberty consists not merely in the absence of external constraint, as per modern liberal (utilitarian) ideals of “negative” freedom, but in access to the resources necessary for a “fulfilled life.” Accordingly, he posits “an economy that allows citizens to flourish in this way” as the condition of equality, and thus democracy.

Wolf refuses to call what comes of this vision socialism, because, like Bardhan and presumably Fukuyama, he still equates socialism with Soviet-style central planning and statist command of all resources. No matter. Call it peas and carrots: it still rhymes with hope rooted in the knowledge that the social, economic, and intellectual changes we desperately need to solve the crisis that now besets us are already underway, already within our grasp. This book is a record of them. The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism never says that the choice before us is either socialism or barbarism. But it comes close enough to suggest that the moderate Martin Wolf has become just the radical we need to address our own transition question.

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.




JAMES LIVINGSTON
James Livingston, Professor of History at Rutgers University, is the author of six books, including Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class, and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913 (Cornell University Press, 1986), and the forthcoming The Intellectual Earthquake: How Pragmatism Changed the World, 1898-2008 (University of Chicago Press).

Revisiting America’s War of Choice in Iraq

Mar 17, 2023

RICHARD HAASS

Wars are fought not only on the battlefield but also in domestic political debates and in histories written after the fact. In the case of the US invasion of Iraq 20 years ago, we are still in this final phase, seeking an elusive consensus about the war's legacy.

NEW YORK – One advantage that historians have over journalists concerns time, not so much in the sense that they are free from urgent deadlines, but that they have the deeper perspective conferred by the years – or decades – between events and the act of writing about them. Twenty years is not a lot of time in historical terms, of course. But when it comes to understanding the war that the United States launched against Iraq in March 2003, it is all we have.

Not surprisingly, even two decades after the war began, there is no consensus regarding its legacy. This is to be expected, because all wars are fought three times. First comes the political and domestic struggle over the decision to go to war. Then comes the actual war, and all that happens on the battlefield. Finally, a long debate over the war’s significance ensues: weighing the costs and benefits, determining the lessons learned, and issuing forward-looking policy recommendations.
THE DECISION TO INTERVENE

The events and other factors that led to the US decision to go to war in Iraq remain opaque and a matter of considerable controversy. Wars tend to fall into two categories: those of necessity and those of choice. Wars of necessity take place when vital interests are at stake and there are no other viable options available to defend them. Wars of choice, by contrast, are interventions initiated when the interests are less than vital, when there are options other than military force that could be employed to protect or promote those interests, or both. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a war of choice; Ukraine’s armed defense of its territory is one of necessity.

The Iraq War was a classic war of choice: the US did not have to fight it. Not everyone agrees with this assessment, however. Some contend that vital interests were indeed at stake, because Iraq was believed to possess weapons of mass destruction that it might use or share with terrorists. Proponents of the war had little to no confidence that the US had other reliable options to eliminate the purported Iraqi WMDs.

Moreover, coming in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision reflected a staunch unwillingness to tolerate any risk to the US whatsoever. The idea that al-Qaeda or another terrorist group could strike the US with a nuclear, chemical, or biological device was simply unacceptable. Then-Vice President Dick Cheney was the primary exponent of this view.

Others, including President George W. Bush and many of his top advisers, appeared also to be motivated by additional calculations, such as the pursuit of what they saw as a new and great foreign-policy opportunity. After 9/11, there was a widespread desire to send a message that the US was not just on the defensive. Rather, it would be a proactive force in the world, taking the initiative with great effect.

Whatever progress had been made in Afghanistan after the US invaded and removed the Taliban government that had provided a safe haven to the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, it was deemed inadequate. Many in the Bush administration were motivated by a desire to bring democracy to the entire Middle East, and Iraq was viewed as the ideal country to set the transition in motion. Democratization there would set an example that others across the region would be unable to resist following. And Bush himself wanted to do something big and bold.

I should make clear that I was part of the administration at the time, as the head of the Department of State’s Policy Planning staff. Like virtually all my colleagues, I thought Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, namely chemical and biological weapons. Even so, I did not favor going to war. I believed there were other acceptable options, above all measures that could slow or stop the flow of Iraqi oil to Jordan and Turkey, as well as the possibility of cutting Iraq’s oil pipeline to Syria. Doing so would have put significant pressure on Saddam to allow inspectors into suspected weapons sites. If those inspections were blocked, the US could have conducted limited attacks against those facilities.

I was not particularly worried about Saddam getting into the terrorism business. He ruled secular Iraq with an iron fist and considered religious-fueled terrorism (with or without Iranian backing) the greatest threat to his regime. He also was not the sort of person to hand WMDs over to terrorists, as he wanted to maintain tight control of anything that could be linked to Iraq.

Moreover, I was deeply skeptical that Iraq – or the wider region – was ripe for democracy, given that the economic, political, and social prerequisites were largely missing. I also foresaw that establishing democracy would require a large, prolonged military occupation that would likely prove costly on the ground and controversial at home.

THE OCCUPATION THAT FAILED

The war itself went better, and certainly faster, than expected – at least in its initial phase. After the invasion in mid-March, it took only around six weeks to defeat the Iraqi armed forces. By May, Bush could claim that the mission was accomplished, meaning that Saddam’s government had been eliminated and any organized, armed opposition had disappeared.

But while the US force that had been sent to remove the government was more than capable of winning the war, it could not secure the peace. Core assumptions that had informed the planning of the invasion – namely, that Iraqis would welcome the troops as liberators – might have been true for a few weeks, but not after that.

The Bush administration wanted to reap the benefits of nation building without putting in the hard work it required. Worse still, those in charge disbanded the former Iraqi regime’s security forces and ruled out political and administrative roles for the many Iraqis who had been members of the ruling Ba’ath (Renaissance) Party, even though membership of the party was often essential to employment under Saddam’s regime.

As might be expected, the situation on the ground deteriorated rapidly. Looting and violence became commonplace. Insurgent movements and a civil war between Sunni and Shia militias destroyed what temporary order had been established. After that, conditions did not begin to improve until 2007, when the US deployed an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq in the famous “surge.” But four years later, Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, decided to withdraw US troops in the face of worsening political relations with the Iraqi government.

A HIGH TOLL

The results of the war have been overwhelmingly negative. Yes, a horrendous tyrant who had used chemical weapons against his own people and initiated wars against two of his neighbors was ousted. For all its flaws, Iraq today is better off than it was, and its long-persecuted Kurdish minority enjoys a degree of autonomy that it was previously denied.


But the cost side of the ledger is far longer. The Iraq War took the lives of some 200,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,600 US soldiers. The economic costs to the US were in the range of $2 trillion, and the war upset the balance of power in the region to the benefit of neighboring Iran, which has increased its sway over Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, in addition to Iraq.

The war also isolated the US, owing to its decision to fight alongside only a few partners and without explicit backing from the United Nations. Millions of Americans became disillusioned with their government and US foreign policy, helping to set the stage for the anti-government populism and foreign-policy isolationism that has dominated US politics in recent years. The war ultimately proved to be a costly distraction. Without it, the US could have been in a much better position to reorient its foreign policy to contend with a more aggressive Russia and a more assertive China.

The war’s lessons are manifold. Wars of choice should be undertaken only with extreme care and consideration of the likely costs and benefits, as well as of the alternatives. This was not done in the case of Iraq. On the contrary, decision-making at the highest levels was often informal and lacking in rigor. The lack of local knowledge was pervasive. It may seem obvious to suggest that it is dangerous or even reckless to invade a country that you do not understand, but that is exactly what the US did.

Assumptions can be dangerous traps. The decision to go to war rested on a worst-possible-case assessment that Iraq possessed WMDs and would use them or provide them to those who would. But if foreign policy always operated on this basis, interventions would be required everywhere. What is needed is a balanced consideration of the most likely scenarios, not just the worst ones.

Ironically, the analysis of what would follow a battlefield victory in Iraq erred in the opposite direction: US officials placed all their chips on a best-case scenario. After rolling out the welcome mat to those who had liberated them from Saddam, the Iraqis would quickly put aside their sectarian differences and embrace democracy. We know what happened instead. The fall of Saddam became a moment for violently settling scores and jockeying for position. Promoting democracy is a daunting task. It is one thing to oust a leader and a regime, but it is quite another thing to put a better, enduring alternative in its place.

LASTING MYTHS

Still, common critiques of the war get it wrong when they conclude that the US government cannot ever be trusted to tell the truth. Yes, the US government maintained that Iraq possessed WMDs, and my boss at the time, Secretary of State Colin Powell, made that case before the United Nations. It turned out not to be true.

But governments can and do get things wrong without lying. More than anything else, the run-up to the Iraq War demonstrated the danger of leaving assumptions unexamined. Saddam’s refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors was seen as proof that he had something to hide. He did, but what he was hiding was not WMDs but the fact he did not have them. That revelation, he feared, would make him look weak to his neighbors and his own people.

Others have argued that the war was undertaken at Israel’s behest. That, too, is not true. I remember meetings with Israeli officials who suggested that the US was going to war with the wrong country. They saw Iran as the much greater threat. But these officials held back from saying so publicly, because they sensed that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and did not want to anger him with futile attempts at dissuasion.

Nor did the US go to war for oil, as many on the left have often insisted. Narrow commercial interests are not generally what animate US foreign policy, especially when it comes to using military force. Rather, interventions are predicated on, and motivated by, considerations of strategy, ideology, or both. Indeed, former President Donald Trump criticized his predecessors for not demanding a share of Iraq’s oil reserves.

The Iraq War also contains a warning about the limits of bipartisanship, which is frequently touted in US politics as if it is a guarantee of good policy. But it is no such thing. There was overwhelming bipartisanship in advance of not just the Iraq War but also the Vietnam War. The 2002 vote authorizing the use of military force against Iraq passed with clear support from both major political parties. But even before that, President Bill Clinton’s administration and Congress had come together, in 1998, to call for regime change in Iraq. More recently, we have seen bipartisanship in opposition to free trade, and in support of leaving Afghanistan and confronting China.

But, just as broad political support is no guarantee that a policy is right or good, narrow support does not necessarily mean that a policy is wrong or bad. The 1990-91 Gulf War – in which the US successfully led a UN-backed international coalition that liberated Kuwait at minimal cost – barely passed Congress, owing to considerable Democratic opposition. Whether or not a policy has bipartisan support tells us nothing about the quality of the policy.

In 2009, I wrote a book arguing that the 2003 Iraq War was an ill-advised war of choice. More than a decade later, and 20 years after the war began, I see no reason to amend that judgment. It was a bad decision, badly executed. The US and the world are still living with the consequences.

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.




RICHARD HAASS
President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author, most recently, of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (Penguin Press, 2023).

In a rare move, a former Israeli leader urges the world to shun the current one


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, with one of his predecessors, Ehud Olmert, in Jerusalem in April 2009.

(Menahem Kahana / Pool Photo)
BY JOSEF FEDERMAN AND AMI BENTOV
ASSOCIATED PRESS

MARCH 17, 2023 

TEL AVIV —

Israel’s former premier is urging world leaders to shun current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he presses ahead with a plan to overhaul the country’s justice system. The U.S. and Germany, two of Israel’s closest allies, called on Netanyahu to slow down.

The rare calls for restraint and international intervention came as thousands of Israelis once again took to the streets to protest Netanyahu’s plan.

Ehud Olmert, who served as prime minister from 2006-09, told the Associated Press on Thursday that global leaders should refuse to meet with Netanyahu. He appealed specifically to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who is expected to host Netanyahu in the coming weeks.

“I urge the leaders of the friendly countries to the state of Israel to refrain from meeting with the Israeli prime minister,” Olmert said.

He said he was aware that his call, as a former Israeli prime minister, “is quite extraordinary” but insisted that the situation justified it. “I think that the present government of Israel is simply anti-Israeli,” Olmert said.

He took aim at Netanyahu’s far-right coalition, an alliance of ultra-Orthodox and ultranationalist parties that oppose Palestinian independence and support increased settlement construction in occupied territories claimed by Palestinians.


Israelis stage ‘day of resistance’ against Netanyahu’s planned judicial overhaul
March 9, 2023

Netanyahu’s coalition allies today have close ties with the West Bank settler movement and have a history of statements offensive to Palestinians, women, LGBTQ people and minorities.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, the current minister for national security, was convicted in the past of incitement to racism and supporting a terror group. Netanyahu’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently called for a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank to be “erased,” though he later apologized after an international uproar over the comments.

“Those who are in favor of the state of Israel should be against the prime minister of the state of Israel,” Olmert said.

A spokesman for Netanyahu did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Netanyahu and his allies are now barreling ahead with a plan that aims to weaken Israel’s Supreme Court and give his parliamentary coalition control over the appointment of judges.

Netanyahu says the plan will correct an imbalance that he says has given the courts too much sway over how Israel is governed. Critics say the overhaul will upend the country’s system of checks and balances and would give the prime minister too much power. They also say Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption charges, could escape justice once the court system is revamped.

Israel’s figurehead president, Isaac Herzog, offered a compromise proposal to the nation late Wednesday. But Netanyahu quickly rejected the package as “one-sided” in favor of his opponents.

The overhaul has plunged Israel into one of its worst domestic crises. Tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets over the last 2½ months, and the plan has sparked uproar among top legal officials, business leaders who say it will damage the economy and some serving in the country’s military, the most trusted institution among Israel’s Jewish majority. Some reservists have pledged not to serve under what they see as a shift toward autocracy.



Protesters held a “day of disruption” for a third week Thursday, with thousands of people blocking roads, including the main highway of the seaside metropolis of Tel Aviv. Protesters in Jerusalem drew a large red and pink streak on city streets leading to the Supreme Court, and a small flotilla of boats blocked the shipping lane off the coast of the northern city of Haifa.

“The elected government is doing a legislative blitz that aims to give absolute power to the executive. And absolute power to the executive with no checks and balances is simply a dictatorship. And this is what we’re fighting against,” said Shlomit Tassa, a protester in Tel Aviv, waving an Israeli flag.

Five opposition party leaders staged a joint press conference and called on Netanyahu to accept the president’s proposal. Yair Lapid, the Knesset opposition leader, said they “welcome the president’s proposal because, in a civil war, there will only be losers.”

Key Israeli allies also waded into the debate. At a joint news conference with Netanyahu in Berlin, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz voiced concern about the overhaul plan and praised the Israeli president’s attempts to seek a “broad basic consensus.”

“As close friends of Israel with shared democratic values, we are following this debate very closely, and I cannot hide the fact that we’re following it with great concern,” Scholz said at a news conference alongside Netanyahu. “The independence of the judiciary is a precious democratic asset.”

Netanyahu showed no sign of being swayed. “I am attentive to what is happening in the nation, but we need to bring something that is in line with the mandate we received,” he told reporters.

The White House also praised Herzog’s effort to broker a compromise.

“The genius of our democracy — and, frankly, Israel’s democracy — is that they’re built on strong institutions, that they include checks and balances that foster an independent judiciary,” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said. He said Herzog’s efforts were “consistent with those same democratic principles.”



Olmert was once one of Netanyahu’s fiercest rivals in the hard-line Likud Party. But over time, Olmert veered to the left. As prime minister, he held months of intense peace talks with the Palestinians before he was forced to resign to face his own legal troubles.

Olmert later spent 16 months in prison after being convicted of accepting bribes and obstructing justice for acts committed years before he was prime minister.

Olmert announced his resignation in 2008, long before he was indicted. At the time, Netanyahu, then in the opposition, led the calls for him to step down, saying he was unfit to rule while facing a criminal probe.

Asked about Netanyahu’s refusal to step down in similar circumstances, Olmert said he had different values from his old rival. He said that at a certain point, he realized the country’s interests were more important than his personal interests.

“The state of Israel comes first,” he said. “I retired a year before I was indicted because I felt that it is not right.”

Middle East’s Saudi-Iran Surprise Could Bring Stability

DAOUD KUTTAB

03/17/2023

Chinese-sponsored deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia alters Middle East political landscape, deals blow to US and Israel

The Chinese-sponsored deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a major political earthquake that will shift many Middle Eastern political alignments, according to analysts.

On the international level, it is a blow to the United States, which has partially lost one of its most important regional allies – Saudi Arabia – to China. The US and Israel were counting on the Saudis and Emiratis to help them weaken the Iranians, but did not pay sufficient attention to Mohammed bin Salman and his father, the Saudi king.

The Israeli military option is dead now. The Israeli attack against Iran has been nullified because the Israelis will not be able to go through Jordan and Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

Military analyst Mamoun Abu Nuwar, a retired Jordanian Air Force major general, told The Media Line that the agreement is a good step.

“It will have a direct effect on the balance of forces in the region, and it will have ripple effects on many levels, including that of the Abraham Accords,” he explained.

Abu Nuwar says that because of the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement, the United Arab Emirates’ concern about attacks from Iran and the Houthis has been diminished, and the Gulf federation no longer needs Israel.

“The Israeli military option is dead now. The Israeli attack against Iran has been nullified because the Israelis will not be able to go through Jordan and Saudi Arabia or Iraq. The military option is dead,” he said.

Abu Nuwar says he thinks that the Saudi-Iran deal will lead to additional breakthroughs in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. And it will facilitate arrangements regarding south Syria that will be good for Jordan as well. However, he is concerned that Jordan may be affected negatively since it withdrew its ambassador from Tehran in June 2018 for Iran’s “interference in Arab affairs” following an Iranian attack on the Saudis. “They were caught off guard, and they were unaware of the changes going on,” he said.

Abu Nuwar said that a political vacuum was created, and vacuums are not good for foreign affairs.

Even though the US has only partially withdrawn from the Middle East, the Chinese were quick to fill that void. But the retired Jordanian general says that the Americans will not leave the region. “Having said all that, the Saudis will not give up on the US, and the Americans will not give up on the Gulf,” he said.

Now the Palestinian cause will receive a morale boost, Abu Nuwar says, but – in addition to Israel and the US – the Emirates came out a loser. “The Israeli protection is useless now, and this is why the UAE suddenly broke off its military deal with the Israelis,” he said, referring to reports that the UAE is suspending certain defense purchases from Jerusalem.

It is premature to expect that things will be resolved between them

However, Khaled Shnikat, director of the Jordanian Society for Political Science, told The Media Line that the situation between Saudi Arabia and Iran is much more complicated and will take some time to unravel.

“It is premature to expect that things will be resolved between them. Iran and Saudi Arabia have a very complicated case in Yemen because it will be hard to undo some of the things that Iran feels they have accomplished in Yemen, as well as in Syria and Iraq. The Iranians have built strong partnerships, and it is premature to expect that Iran will simply fold and give up their gains in the region,” he said.

Shnikat noted that the big worry in the Gulf is Iranian expansionist efforts. “Maybe this agreement will put a stop to expansionist ideologies and practices, but it is unlikely that they will give up their achievements,” he said.

They had no choice but to mend their relationships and revitalize diplomacy instead of clashes

Tagreed Odeh, a Jordanian political scientist, told The Media Line that the political and military needs of both the Saudis and the Iranians forced them to this agreement. “They had no choice but to mend their relationships and revitalize diplomacy instead of clashes,” she said.

Odeh says that the agreement will bring stability and remove the Saudis and the other Gulf states from being Iranian targets, lessening the chance of any attack against Iran from any US bases in the Gulf region.

The important part of the deal might be the Chinese guarantor

Hazem Dmour, the general manager at the Amman-based think tank STRATEGIECS, is not sure if this deal will hold up. He told The Media Line that the next two months will be crucial.

“Until now we have a security and intelligence deal, but the next two months will tell if the diplomatic and political effort will come around. It is true that Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq have welcomed the deal but that is part of being supportive of Iran. The important part of the deal might be the Chinese guarantor,” he said.

The big question that needs to be answered will be whether the Israelis will continue to pursue their anti-Iranian policy

Amer Sabileh, a strategic expert, believes the agreement’s major problem will be the Israelis. “The Saudis have an economic plan which requires stability, the big question that needs to be answered will be whether the Israelis will continue to pursue their anti-Iranian policy or not,” he said.

While the return of relations, which should be welcomed by all, will mean a much more stable and less volatile Middle East, the rapprochement between Sunni Saudis and Shia Iranians will directly influence the civil war in Yemen. The Zaidi Shia Houthis will now have to mend their relationship with their fellow Sunni Yemenis, hopefully ending the eight-year-long civil war.

The improvement of relations will also help smooth the election of a new Christian Maronite president in Lebanon and allow for some kind of consensus between Sunni Muslims and the Hizbullah-supporting Shia Muslims in Lebanon, experts say.

The deal might also ease the conflict in Syria. Saudis are on good terms with the Russians, and, with this agreement, it is possible to find a comprehensive deal regarding the presence of troops from Russia, Iran, the US, and Turkey on Syrian soil.

FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE

Malaysia launches first flagship medical tourism hospital programme

The Malaysia Healthcare Travel Council (MHTC) said that the Flagship Medical Tourism Hospital Programme was critical in transforming the healthcare ecosystem in Malaysia and the region.

 Photo: Picryl

By Coconuts 

KL

Mar 17, 2023 |

Malaysia has launched its first Flagship Medical Tourism Hospital Programme, with four finalists chosen from a pool of eight, including the National Heart Institute (IJN), Island Hospital, Mahkota Medical Centre, and Subang Jaya Medical Centre.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Malaysia Healthcare Travel Council (MHTC) stated that the Flagship Medical Tourism Hospital Programme was critical in transforming the healthcare ecosystem in Malaysia and the region.

“Through this programme, the country’s top hospitals are intensifying their commitment and endeavours to raise the bar of excellence in delivering exceptional end-to-end services to their patients, further reinforcing Malaysia’s position as a safe and trusted destination for healthcare,” the statement read.

According to the statement, the finalists were carefully chosen in 2022 after an extensive and rigorous qualifying process that included data analysis and on-site assessments.

In addition, it stated that the finalists had advanced to the program’s next stage, known as the Acceleration Period, which will evaluate their development over the course of a three-year period against industry standards and best practices for medical and service excellence as well as global branding.

“In support of the growth plan during the Acceleration Period 2023-2025, the shortlisted finalists will be granted several incentives. These incentives include fast-track facilitation to support the development milestones, the flexibility of testing concepts with healthcare technology sandbox and more,” it said.

The flagship program, according to Health Minister Dr. Zaliha Mustafa will foster innovation and excellence in medical care, putting Malaysia Healthcare on the map as a reputable and well-known global healthcare brand. This will help the nation’s healthcare system become more resilient.

“To this end, I am pleased to announce the provision of a Special Investment Tax Allowance (ITA) for the Flagship Medical Tourism Hospital Programme finalists, which will enable our shortlisted hospitals with the resources to make qualifying capital expenditures to support their growth plans during the acceleration period from 2023 to 2025.

“This special ITA will include technology investments aimed at driving digital transformation in healthcare, in line with Malaysia’s IR4.0 aspiration,” she added.

The Flagship Medical Tourism Hospital Programme is a collaborative effort between MHTC and global medical accreditation bodies IQVIA and Joint Commission International (JCI).

South Korea wanted a 69-hour workweek. Young people weren’t having it.

March 17, 2023 

Members of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions participate in a May Day rally near Seoul City Hall last year. The KCTU has criticized the government's efforts to extend the workweek to 69 hours, saying it would come at the expense of laborers. 

(Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images)

For Im, a 30-year-old who has a corporate job in South Korea, a typical workday starts at 9 a.m. and ends as late as 10 p.m. He works up to 70 hours on busy weeks, well above the 52-hour legal limit set by the government in 2018. There is no extra pay for the overtime he puts in, he says.

Im, who spoke on the condition that only his last name be used because he was not authorized by his employer to speak publicly, is among the millions of South Koreans in their 20s or 30s who were exasperated by last week’s proposal from President Yoon Suk Yeol’s administration to raise the legal cap on weekly work hours to 69.

In a rare policy reversal, the government will reconsider the plan after a vocal pushback from younger adults. “The president views workweeks longer than 60 hours as unrealistic, even when including overtime,” Ahn Sang-hoon, a senior presidential adviser, told reporters Thursday. “The government will listen more carefully to opinions from MZ workers” among others, he added, using the collective term commonly used in South Korea for millennials and those in Generation Z.

“I think it’s a positive sign that the president has taken a step back after listening to younger generations,” said Kim Seol, the chief of Youth Community Union, a labor activist group that advocates better working conditions for younger adults. “But it’s also proof that the president didn’t really think this through,” he said.

Yoon’s disapproval rating among South Koreans in their 20s and 30s jumped to 66 percent and 79 percent respectively on March 10, four days after the government formally announced the 69-hour proposal, according to Gallup Korea. (The ratings were 57 percent and 62 percent respectively on March 3.) Disapproval ratings from other age groups during the same period either stayed similar or decreased.


Gen Z came to ‘slay.’ Their bosses don’t know what that means.

By law, the South Korean workweek is 40 hours with up to 12 hours of weekly overtime, as long as the employer compensates workers with extra vacation or pay. In practice, overtime frequently goes unrewarded, according to workers in their 20s and 30s who spoke to The Post. Employers nudge them to do leftover work from home in the evenings, they say, and in some cases accuse them of being inefficient to avoid legal scrutiny for the extended hours.

Daniel Kim, a 35-year-old who works in the medical industry as a researcher, said he once went through an eight-month period when he could not go home before 10 p.m. Eighty-hour workweeks were not unheard of at his company, he said. His wife, who is employed by a pharmaceutical firm and often works into the night, was wrapping up work at home as he was being interviewed for this story around 9 p.m. Wednesday.

South Koreans work an average of 1,915 hours a year, while Americans work 1,791 hours, according to the latest figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD average is 1,716 hours.

Neighboring Japan — which two decades ago had work hours above the OECD mean and is still taking steps to overcome the problem of karoshi, or deaths from overworking — last year averaged 1,607 hours. Today, “working excessively long hours is frowned upon” in Japan, said Motohiro Morishima, a professor of human resource management at Gakushuin University in Kyoto. South Korea should seek to increase productivity, not working hours, he said.

“If there is more work, [South Korean] employers should hire more people,” said Lee Jong-sun, a professor of labor relations at Korea University’s Graduate School of Labor Studies in Seoul. That way, more jobs are created and overwork is reduced, he said.

But companies rarely do, he said, because they either don’t have the financial capacity or because it’s cheaper to ask existing employees to pick up the slack. “Hiring new people means more benefits, insurance and more wages,” Lee said. “It’s more expensive.”

Employees at a Seoul start-up that matches moms with potential babysitters on Feb. 10. (Woohae Cho/Bloomberg News)

As recently as 20 years ago, South Koreans were expected to work 5½ days each week. On Saturday mornings, children would go to school while parents headed to the office for a half-day. It was only in 2011 that the country fully adopted the five-day workweek. Seven years later, the country capped weekly working hours at 52.

“Nobody wants to go back to longer weeks,” said Lee, 58, who remembers when he would have to sacrifice participation at family gatherings on Saturdays to go to work. Legalizing a workweek of 60-plus hours would be like sending the country back in time, he said. “We’ve already felt the benefits of shorter weeks. Why would anyone want to go back?”

Im, who works the corporate job, got married this year — and said a 69-hour workweek would mean giving up his and his wife’s hope of having two kids. “Who’s going to take care of the baby if mom and dad are at work all day?” he said. “It’s frustrating, but there’s little I can do about it.” He expressed doubt that South Korea’s world-lowest birthrate of 0.78 would improve under such a system.

Long hours are associated with low birthrates because they are “antithetical to caring and they make the clash between work and care” difficult, said Rae Cooper, a professor of gender and employment relations at the University of Sydney. “South Korea sits near the top of the list” of countries with long working hours, she said, adding: “This is not a prize to be celebrated.”