When I last looked, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was still very carefully trying to say nothing at all about the EPA’s proposed new emission standards which are designed to reduce carbon emissions in the United States 30% by 2030. Which is actually pretty much in line with her past behavior; McCaskill has long been a disappointment to her constituents when it comes to showing leadership on the issue of climate change. She has been very careful to avoid even the appearance of pulling out the rug from under dirty coal, the producers and consumers of which are a powerful force in Missouri which currently gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.

McCaskill’s past arguments for rejecting stronger regulation of carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants have revolved around: (1) the supposed potential for economic hardship for “Missouri’s families,” and, (2) the assertion that the costs would be born disproportionately by the U.S. She has noted that “it’s not going to do us any good to clean up our act as it relates to the atmosphere. It’s the same atmosphere that China shares and Japan shares and India shares. Some very big industrial countries.”

The first argument, which McCaskill shares with most Republican apologists for fossil fuels, should, by now, occasion the great hilarity that is due arguments that pit relatively minor, short-term concerns against long-term, global survival. After all, while it’s questionable that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will seriously harm those Missouri families she is so fond of citing, doing nothing about climate change is going to really hurt Missourians over the next thirty years, particularly those dependent on agriculture. A recent report stipulates that “higher temperatures will reduce Midwest crop yields by 19 percent by midcentury and by 63 percent by the year 2100.” McCaskill’s position also ignores the hidden costs of fossil fuel dependence, such as the personal and economic aspects of its effect on public health.  

A new report, the 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI), demonstrates the emptiness of McCaskill’s international rationale for delaying action on carbon emisions. According to the LCEI:

… . China could be viewed as the poster child for developing countries, with a 2013 national decarbonisation rate of 4%. China improved its energy intensity by 3% in 2013, the third highest amongst the G20, and has a flourishing renewable energy sector 2. China also launched seven regional emissions trading schemes over the last year, although these are unlikely to have a dramatic impact on emissions in the short term. …

And:

While coal use in China rose by 3.7% in 2013, it is at a much slower rate than in previous years. China has made public efforts to curb coal use to manage its air pollution problems, for example a limit on coal use to 65% of its energy mix, and more recently a proposed ban on coal-fired power in Beijing by 2020. …  

China lowered its carbon emissions by 3.5%, a full percentage point more than the US where:

A revival of coal […], driven by a combination of falling coal prices and rising gas prices, has also been a major factor in the low US position in the G20 decarbonisation league table. Coal in the US has regained some market share from natural gas in the generation mix  ince its low in April 2012, causing an increase in emissions, and dispelling the myth that a shale gas revolution will necessarily result in emissions reductions. …

Don’t these numbers make it clear that we can no longer allow our politicans to point to the other guy in order to excuse inaction on carbon emissions? Certainly we should not allow Senator McCaskill to do so when the time comes when she will have to make her position on the new EPA regulations known. While the reduction in carbon emissions that these regulations would achieve is still not enough to stop potentially catastrophic global warming, they would still move us significantly forward in that direction:

If the rule goes forward as it is currently conceived, this proposal, combined with the reductions to date and those that will be driven by prior executive actions addressing the transportation sector, would, in approximate terms, put the US on a path to achieve Obama’s 17% by 2020 pledge. However, putting the proposed rule in context of the global de-carbonization challenge, it will achieve a small portion of the reductions required to stay within 2°C carbon budget. The EPA estimates it will result in reductions from the business as usual case of 545 MM tonnes of CO2 in 2030*. This plan would contribute a cumulative 5.9% reduction in US carbon intensity or an average annual additional intensity reduction of 0.39%

.

Isn’t it time for the US to start to play the leadership role when it comes to climate change that those advocates of “American exceptionalism” expect us to play when the question involves military action? Let’s ask Senator McCaskill why China should have to do all the heavy lifting – particularly since it’s clear that no nation can do it alone. And while we’re at it, let’s ask the Senator why she can’t manage to play more of a leadership role when it comes to helping our state make the transition from dirty energy sources – surely she can manage to stop concentrating on keeping her balance on the center line that runs down that rightward veering highway she’s been traveling in order to help determine the outcome of what will probably be the defining issue of our time.

Update:  Via Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore, Paul Krugman writes today on false economic arguments of the fossil fuel advocates:

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

But you know that such assessments will be met with claims that it’s impossible to break the link between economic growth and ever-rising emissions of greenhouse gases, a position I think of as “climate despair.” The most dangerous proponents of climate despair are on the anti-environmentalist right. But they receive aid and comfort from other groups, including some on the left, who have their own reasons for getting it wrong.

Their own reasons …. hmmm. Locally, could that be Peabody Coal? Along with all the voting Missourians who get all their information from Fox News? How do you balance them beans against climate apocalypse?

From 2012:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the black helicopters will be dropping microchip infested toasters on us (April 8, 2012)

[….]

….Question: …It’s an honor to talk to you. Uh, my concern, one of the concerns, is China. We’re buying military parts for our military from China. We’re buying military parts that do not work. We have closed factories in this country and that’s moved one of the big companies that we’re buying, [inaudible] countries that we’re buying from. [inaudible] We’re buying this stuff, we’re putting it in planes, we’re putting it in our material and it does not work. And they [inaudible].

There are a lot of people in this country that are getting fed up with this. I mean, fed up [inaudible] [Representative Hartzler: “Right.”] And something had better be done. I’m not threatening anybody. What I’m saying is something, I, I know, I follow this, and I know, I know what, I believe I know what I’m talking about.

There’s a line in this country. And I’m on one side of that line, a lot of people are. And there are people [inaudible] on the other side. I don’t know what’s gonna happen. If things don’t change it’s not going to be good. It’s going to be bad. I really believe that.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Okay. Excellent. Excellent point. You’re, you’re spot on. I, I joined the, the name of the caucus is China caucus which I wish we’d change, change the name. But basically it’s a watch China caucus. It’s a, it’s a bunch of us who are concerned about China. And on a regular basis we get reports [inaudible] watching what they’re doing.

And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know. I, I read a report the other day talking how China is the number one spy network in the world. And I thought, we need to have a new, uh, double oh seven James Bond movie, you know, with China as the bad guys, as the spies, because really, it’s true, those movies always portray, uh, Russia or something. But China has the largest spy network, they’re stealing our intelligence from our co, corporations. The article talked about how it’s the largest industrial, um, uh, espionage and, uh, stealing, uh, theft in, in history. And yet, how many people are talking about it, how they’re accessing our intellectual property of our corporations and it’s very concerning.

Just want you to know, it’s supposed to be illegal, uh, you’re supposed to use American products in our military equipment. But, I’m not sure that’s always the case and so I am looking in to that as well, with your concern. To make sure that they’re not using China microchips in our planes or in our tanks or anything else. So, I want to make sure that doesn’t happen. So, I will follow up on that ’cause that is a concern I have as well. So, China is very concerning….

[….]

“…And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know…”

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Am just starting hearing in HASC on the 2013 Report to Congress on the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission. Important topic. 7:06 AM – 20 Nov 13

And this response, from a constituent:

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler I look forward to reading how the Chinese are planting their microchips in what they make in order to spy on us.7:24 AM – 20 Nov 13

And, a retort!:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

@OldDrum You’ve totally distorted the issue. Here’s what Sen. Levin (D) has to say: [….] 7:33 AM – 20 Nov 13

What Senator Carl Levin’s (D) “has to say” is something about counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense supply chain coming from (mostly) China and a few other places:

Senate Armed Services Committee Releases Report on Counterfeit Electronic Parts

Monday, May 21, 2012

…China was found to be the source country for suspect counterfeit parts in an overwhelming majority of those cases, with more than 70 percent of the suspect parts traced to that country.  The next two largest source countries were the United Kingdom and Canada.  The Committee identified instances in which both countries served as resale points for suspect counterfeit electronic parts from China….

“…And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know…”

Uh, there doesn’t appear to be anything in Senator Levin’s (D) release and in the report [pdf] which refers to “tracking capabilities in some of the things we own.”

Actually, the report addresses substandard parts which could lead to reliability issues in a system or subsystem. That is an important issue, but it’s not “detection or tracking capabilities” embedded in consumer products.

The Department of Defense definition of counterfeit includes “both unauthorized copies and previously used parts that are made to look new, and are sold as new.”

So, the mockery directed at Representative Hartzler (r) via Twitter from the constituent stems from her eager conflation of two different and competing concepts at that town hall in Sedalia, Missouri in 2012:

…On one hand their stuff doesn’t work, and on the other hand the microchips in the stuff they sell us (that does or doesn’t work?) are spying on us…

Somebody did totally distort the issue. It wasn’t Bob Yates.

The birther business from Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) town hall in Sedalia, Missouri last Thursday has been making the national news rounds these past few days. There was another remarkable exchange, also mentioned in the Sedalia Democrat report, which possesses an abundance of right wingnut paranoid win.  

At 17:00 in the video:

….Question: …It’s an honor to talk to you. Uh, my concern, one of the concerns, is China. We’re buying military parts for our military from China. We’re buying military parts that do not work. We have closed factories in this country and that’s moved one of the big companies that we’re buying, [inaudible] countries that we’re buying from. [inaudible] We’re buying this stuff, we’re putting it in planes, we’re putting it in our material and it does not work. And they [inaudible].

There are a lot of people in this country that are getting fed up with this. I mean, fed up [inaudible] [Representative Hartzler: “Right.”] And something had better be done. I’m not threatening anybody. What I’m saying is something, I, I know, I follow this, and I know, I know what, I believe I know what I’m talking about.

There’s a line in this country. And I’m on one side of that line, a lot of people are. And there are people [inaudible] on the other side. I don’t know what’s gonna happen. If things don’t change it’s not going to be good. It’s going to be bad. I really believe that.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Okay. Excellent. Excellent point. You’re, you’re spot on. I, I joined the, the name of the caucus is China caucus which I wish we’d change, change the name. But basically it’s a watch China caucus. It’s a, it’s a bunch of us who are concerned about China. And on a regular basis we get reports [inaudible] watching what they’re doing.

And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know. I, I read a report the other day talking how China is the number one spy network in the world. And I thought, we need to have a new, uh, double oh seven James Bond movie, you know, with China as the bad guys, as the spies, because really, it’s true, those movies always portray, uh, Russia or something. But China has the largest spy network, they’re stealing our intelligence from our co, corporations. The article talked about how it’s the largest industrial, um, uh, espionage and, uh, stealing, uh, theft in, in history. And yet, how many people are talking about it, how they’re accessing our intellectual property of our corporations and it’s very concerning.

Just want you to know, it’s supposed to be illegal, uh, you’re supposed to use American products in our military equipment. But, I’m not sure that’s always the case and so I am looking in to that as well, with your concern. To make sure that they’re not using China microchips in our planes or in our tanks or anything else. So, I want to make sure that doesn’t happen. So, I will follow up on that ’cause that is a concern I have as well. So, China is very concerning….

“…Excellent. Excellent point. You’re, you’re spot on…”

Think about that mutual paranoia exchange for a minute. On one hand their stuff doesn’t work, and on the other hand the microchips in the stuff they sell us (that does or doesn’t work?) is are spying on us.

This is a member of Congress and the House Armed Services Committee? We’re doomed.

A video compilation by personman of Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) obsession with China expressed at recent town halls in the 4th Congressional District:

From the Warrensburg town hall on August 10,2011:

….Representative Hartzler: Shh. All right. China owns twenty-nine percent of our foreign debt. That is a real concern to me. I said I’m on the Armed Services Committee and I’ve got to sit in a lot of hearings and I can tell you, I don’t know what China’s doing, but it’s concerning. They are building fourteen nuclear submarines right now. We’re building one. They have been devoting over twelve percent of their budget to national defense. Uh, they just introduced their version of a stealth aircraft fighter plane recently. And they just unveiled a twelve hundred mile aircraft carrier busting bomb. So, it’s a little concerning that they hold this much of our debt. In fact, with the interest that we pay China we would be able to buy three, or they could buy, three joint strike fighters and still have fifty million dollars left over. So, um, there’s a lot of reasons I think that we need to get out of debt. But certainly this obligation, um, to China is a concerning one….

We can take a look at what China is doing.

From the World Bank:

Military expenditure (% of GDP)

Country 2006/2007/2008/2009

China 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.0

United States 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.7

….Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are judged to be trained and equipped for military operations; and military space activities. Such expenditures include military and civil personnel, including retirement pensions of military personnel and social services for personnel; operation and maintenance; procurement; military research and development; and military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). Excluded are civil defense and current expenditures for previous military activities, such as for veterans’ benefits, demobilization, conversion, and destruction of weapons….

[emphasis added]

From visualeconomics:

Military Spending Worldwide

….The United States spends $711 billion on military spending each year, representing 48 percent of the total military spending in the world….

….The Middle East and North Africa spend $82 billion on military spending each year. This is 5 percent of the world’s military spending. Australasia and East Asia together spend $120 billion on military expenses. This is 8 percent of total world military spending. China spends 8 percent of the world’s total military spending with $122 billion spent each year. Europe spends a total of $289 billion on military spend annually. Europe’s military spending is 20 percent of the world’s military spending….

[emphasis added]

I wonder if she’ll describe a bomber gap at the next town hall? Just asking.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town halls in Clinton and Warrensburg (August 10, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 1 (August 11, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 2 (August 12, 2011)

Vicky Hartzler is trying trying to scare you (August 12, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 3 (August 13, 2011)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): town hall in Warrensburg, part 4 (August 14, 2011)

When I read Michael Bersin’s transcript of Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s (R-4) recent town hall meeting in Warrensburg, I was struck by a specific aspect of her effort to gin up hysteria about the national debt. If all else fails, trot out a scary picture of the foreign bête noire of the day, currently China, and  you’ll fire up the xenophobes every time:

China owns twenty-nine percent of our foreign debt. That is a real concern to me. I said I’m on the Armed Services Committee and I’ve got to sit in a lot of hearings and I can tell you, I don’t know what China’s doing, but it’s concerning. They are building fourteen nuclear submarines right now. We’re building one. They have been devoting over twelve percent of their budget to national defense. Uh, they just introduced their version of a stealth aircraft fighter plane recently. And they just unveiled a twelve hundred mile aircraft carrier busting bomb. So, it’s a little concerning that they hold this much of our debt. In fact, with the interest that we pay China we would be able to buy three, or they could buy, three joint strike fighters and still have fifty million dollars left over. So, um, there’s a lot of reasons I think that we need to get out of debt. But certainly this obligation, um, to China is a concerning one.

First of all, if you’ll forgive me for a little nitpicking, Rep. Hartzler may be technically correct that China owns somewhere in the neighborhood of 29% of our foreign public debt – but she conveniently leaves out the fact that all foreign investors together, including China, own only 31% of our gross national debt*. China is no longer even the largest investor in that group. China currently owns only 8% of our gross national debt. See how it works –  and how Hartzler is conflating different categories of debt to create a misleading impresion?

Further, as economist Dean Baker notes, “foreign borrowing is determined by the trade deficit, end of story,” and the value of the debt held by foreign entities is tied to the value of the dollar in relation to foreign currencies. This means that it is in China’s interest to prop up the dollar, which it does by buying U.S. Treasury bills, bonds, and notes. Their willingness to hold our marker, so to speak, is not directly affected by our deficit, nor is it likely to be affected by the domestic spending cuts Hartzler and her GOP cohorts advocate.

To be fair, some economists are concerned that if the U.S. is unable to get its debt under control long-term – and the idea of long-term vs. short term is key here – it will affect the confidence of investors like China. Most concede, however that in the case of China, our interests are so conjoined that there is little likelihood that they will do anything to endanger our prosperity. China depends on the U.S. to buy Chinese goods. Without a prosperous, ever-consuming U.S., Chinese growth stalls. As Adam Davidson of NPR’s Planet Money put it in an interview earlier this year:

… the only way China can hurt us is to completely destroy their own economy. China needs the U.S. and the U.S. dollar to stay healthy, to keep growing. What we have is mutually assured economic destruction.

Michael Bersin,  quotes former Secretary of State Richard Armitage who was interviewed during a visit to Warrensburg a couple of years ago, and went so far as to assert that China’s internal stability depends on the United States economic viability.

… If the t-bills, if China withdrew, [i.e. sold off their U.S. debt] they would not be able to keep that economy humming along. They would have instant social upheaval in the countryside and probably in the cities.

So why is Hartzler trying to stoke fears about China, directly implying that China is somehow leveraging American debt to build up its military at the expense of U.S. defenses? As Personman, who was also present at the Warrensburg town hall, observed in the comments to Bersin’s transcript, Hartzler played fast and loose in her comments about the implied Chinese threat, offering:

… no evidence that they’re [i.e. the Chinese] spending the money on this [i.e. military buildup], but just the suggestion that they could be. She also cites China when explaining why we shouldn’t cut defense. She doesn’t mention the fact that we’re outspending them 7 to 1 and have been for so long that her fears about China are probably unfounded

Hartzler, of course, is not the only winger parlaying fear of the Chinese into a tool to cut social spending. She may be silly enough to actually believe the twaddle she’s peddling, but, in the wider context, I think Dean Baker has the right of it:

So, why do all the deficit hawks talk about borrowing money from China? They do it for the same reason that George HW Bush talked about Willie Horton when he was running against Michael Dukakis. It works.

The deficit hawks want the country to agree to take steps that are incredibly unpopular. They want the public to support the gutting of essential support programmes for the middle class like social security and Medicare. Naturally, this is a hard sell. Therefore, if it takes a little China bashing to make the policy go down easier, the deficit hawks are perfectly prepared to go that route. That’s the way politics works in the United States.

* Gross national debt is made up of intragovernmental debt and public debt or net debt; foreign debt is that portion of public debt that is held by foreign entities.

Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) introduced some legislation last week, S163, the “Full Faith and Credit Act,” that confirms one’s suspicion that some of the folks who have been entrusted with our fiduciary well-being have a very shallow understanding of economics. The legislation would, as TPM’s Brian Beutler describes it:

… force the U.S. government to reroute huge amounts of money to China and other creditors in the event that Congress fails to raise its debt ceiling. …

If passed, Toomey’s plan would require the government to cut large checks to foreign countries, and major financial institutions, before paying off its obligations to Social Security beneficiaries and other citizens owed money by the Treasury — that is, if the U.S. hits its debt ceiling. …

At times Toomey speaks as if attaching such a big stick to the debt ceiling would force Democrats to go along with the outrageous cuts in spending that Republicans are trying to ram down our throats (remember that phrase?).* At other times, he seems to think that this bill would itself put to rest the argument that failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause the U.S. to default.* Go figure. Of course, it would do no such thing:

… his idea is unworkable,” said Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin in a statement. “It would not actually prevent default, since it would seek to protect only principal and interest payments, and not other legal obligations of the U.S., from non-payment. Adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be default by another name, since the world would recognize it as a failure by the U.S. to stand behind its commitments.

And the punch line? Among the 18 co-sponsors in the Senate, we find our own Roy Blunt. The same Roy Blunt whose campaign ads fear-mongered about Medicare cuts. Guess what this bill aims to do? If you guessed cut Medicare you’re right – and you can throw in Social Security, Defense, you name it, for good measure.

HR421, the companion legislation that Rep. Tom McClintock has just filed in the House, counts among its 15 co-sponsors Blunt’s successor in the House, Billy Long, who is the first, and currently the only Missourian to sign on – a situation that, given the general nuttiness factor in our GOP congressional delegation, will probably soon be rectified. Nevertheless, given that the early adopters, so-to-speak, in Missouri represent or have represented the same district in the House, one is tempted to think there might be something in that Ozark water that leads to the kind of foolishness that can justify giving priority to paying the Chinese and Japanese before Americans – or before simply raising the debt ceiling, something Republicans have been more than willing to do when there was a Republican in the White House.

* Edited slightly to clarify meaning.

Our previous coverage of former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage speaking at Missouri Boys State on Monday evening:

Richard Armitage at Missouri Boys State: via Twitter

Richard Armitage at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

…Question: …I was wondering, you talked about the situation in Asia and Obama’s ‘soft power’. I was wondering what you think is the best source for Obama in regards to foreign policy, especially tensions in Asia?

Richard Armitage: Well I think, uh, you’ll see Mr. Obama go to Asia here shortly. First of all, let’s see what he’s done on Asia so far. He sent Hillary Clinton out there first [audience reaction], her first trip, which as normally for a Secretary of State, going to Europe. She went there and it was excellent signal to our Asian friends. Second, Mr. Obama, who lived in Indonesia for a time, is looking forward to going back, probably at the time of, of the APEC meeting which is held, I think, this year in Singapore. I can’t remember where. But anyway, Mr. Obama will be, will be going. Uh, third, he has dramatically increased our interaction, uh, with Asian societies. In the last two years of Mr. Bush’s administration the Assistant Secretary for East Asia focused almost entirely on North Korea – this is Ambassador Hill who’s now in Iraq – to the exclusion of the others. And there were all kinds of stories in all the Asian press about America is passing over Asia etcetera, etcetera. Now this is one of the reasons that Secretary Gates was sent by Mr. Obama to Singapore to give this speech where he said we’re a resident nation in Asia. So I think he’s doing fantastically well for Asia now that we’re back on track with Japan and South Korea and China on the six party talks. I think Mr. Obama ought to continue his personal interaction but not overlook the tenets of the Hippocratic Oath. You know what the Hippocratic Oath tells you to do? First, do no harm. It’s what doctors are cautioned, first, do no harm. And this is what Mr. Obama should do first. Do no harm. And when he goes to Japan, when he goes to Korea, when he goes to China soon I think you’ll see him do a hell of a lot of good for us. I’m pretty enthusiastic about his Asia team and his own views of Asia, not least of which because he used to live in Indonesia. [applause]…

…Question: …I was wondering, did we have any leader in the United States ever try any diplomatic relationship with Sadam Hussein?

Richard Armitage: Did any leader in the United States do what?

Question:  Uh, try to diplomatically talk with Sadam Hussein.

Richard Armitage: Uh, yeah, uh, I’ll give you any number of instances. First, uh, of course, Secretary Rumsfeld did, nineteen eighty-four. Then I did in nineteen ninety-one, with the Gulf War, first Gulf War. Uh, we sent unbelievably numbers of messages through, like, the United Arab Emirates, Cairo, Egypt to try to talk to Sadam Hussein. Uh, to my knowledge he was uninterested. But if you’re saying did anyone pick up the phone and call him, not to my knowledge. Uh, and of course, we had not had an embassy there for some time. We did during the first Gulf War, not during the second Gulf War. Uh, so, uh, I don’t, I don’t know what I don’t know. As far as I know nobody did talk to him in the final days leading up to the invasion.

Question: …I’d like to ask you, with Obama using a lot softer force when dealing with other nations, and the economy problems, and climate control coming up to head, do you see any possible way of a one world order coming in soon?

Richard Armitage: Question has to do with would there be a possibility of one world order. I don’t see it. Uh, in fact, I think the whole thrust of what we’ve seen, uh, in the last twenty years has been more nationalism around the world. If you look what happened in the former Yugoslavia, now we have Serbia, we have Bosnia, and , uh, Kosovo. Uh, you’ve seen a proliferation, if you will, of nations. So I think actually things are going a different direction. You’re seeing, you’ve got more nations in the United Nations now than you had twenty years ago, so I don’t see a new world order or a one world order on the agenda.

And Mr. Obama is in some ways presenting a much better face to the world. I wouldn’t call it a soft face, I’d call it a smart face. I think he’s using both our soft and hard power in a more intelligent way. Certainly if you’re in Afghanistan you’re not looking at soft power. Uh, Mr. Obama just put twenty-one thousand, [garbled] twenty-one thousand more troops in. so, uh, I think he’s using our power more intelligently. And using all the tools in our kit box now, in our tool box. Uh, Mr. Bush just used sanctions and, and force. Uh, and I think this gives us a better opportunity to prevail. What is soft power? [garbled] It’s the ability to attract. You want to persuade, you want to attract them. Hard power is coercive.  Well, force them to do something. If you can attract people I think it’s always better. It seems to last longer.

Question: …My question for you is, with the current situation in North Korea and the testing of the nuclear weapons, what are, what is the U.S. doing to better our situation and stance with what they’re doing?

Richard Armitage:…I would argue that we put new F-22s in, fighter aircraft, in Okinawa to kind of up the ante a little bit. That is, the North Koreans have to realize their behavior has left them in a slightly less, uh, secure position, number one. Number two, uh, we backed, led the UN vote on the sanctions which if put into effect can be meaningful. Number three, I predict we’ll go back to do some, doing something unilaterally, probably, actually bilaterally with the Japanese. We have the ability to interfere with the money that actually goes to the regime. That was what the big to do a year ago was concerning the Macao bank accounts. This really bothered the Kim Jong-il regime, hence it seems like a supremely good idea for me to go back and do that again. Uh, in fact, if I were in the government I’d be arguing to do just that now, to interfere with the finances of the senior leadership. And we know who they are and we know where the money is. [applause]

Question: …I was just wondering, uh, you have been up here today, said that you have been in support of President Obama. I was wondering if you’d be able to accept the viewpoints of your friend General Powell, not only helping President Obama, but if you were interested in any parts of his administration or any help that you’d be able to assist with the president. And what do believe that, uh, you’d be able to help with the most?

Richard Armitage: Well, first of all Secretary Powell, you may have seen recently, is trying to get the Republican Party to behave itself and actually act as a loyal opposition and actually stand for something for a change. And not just run around like a bunch of knuckleheads. Uh, he’s trying to have a real debate. [applause] If we don’t have that debate and if we can’t have a very functioning, coherent Republican Party which stands for something, then this nation will be ill served. And our friends on the Democratic side will do what any administration would do if they hold the overwhelming majority, they’ll go off the rails. They’ll overreach. So, for no other reason we need a very coherent Republican Party. For the second, the question of assisting Mr. Obama, uh, Secre
tary Powell has, uh, met with him most recently about three weeks ago for an hour. They talked about a full range of things, they talk on the phone a lot. Mr. Obama has called me. I’m sure if, uh, I’ll just speak for me, if my telephone rang the answer would be “yes”. Uh, but it hasn’t rung. And, uh, who knows? Mr. Obama, when I talked with him he said, uh, we’ll want to get together in due course and, uh, we had a good conversation. As I said, Powell’s in to see him all the time. So, I don’t think Secretary Powell at his age wants an official position with the administration, but I, I, it’s quite clear if there was some special mission that the president wanted Secretary Powell to do, he’d do it. Because he’s served over forty years, I suspect he’d continue serving again. [applause]

Question: …I was wondering about what you thought about, uh, the threat that the, Brazil, Russia, India, and China have to U.S. hegemony, when you consider [crosstalk]…

Richard Armitage: The threat, the threat of which, please?

Question: Of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. When you look to the [garbled] proposed thesis about their gross domestic product by mid century, coupled with the post American world.

Richard Armitage: Yeah, [garbled] indicated clearly when we come out of this recession, uh, the [garbled] countries I referred to, Brazil, Russia, India and China, uh, are gonna be in a new place. And we’re gonna find ourself in a new place. And it’s gonna take a lot more nimble diplomacy, a nimble, uh, treasury, uh, work, for us to maintain our dominance. These, nothing here happens overnight. It happens over a long period of time. And those countries you named, Brazil and India, are relatively young. Uh, India’s what, twenty-four point eight years of age? Brazil, I, I think it’s around that. Russia and China are actually quite old. China’s about thirty-seven years median age and Russia is older than that, older than us in terms of median age. Which means for Russia you’ve got a declining empire. For China you’ve got one that around twenty forty is gonna peak out and have a lot of old people. But India will still be in the ascendency. Our close relationship is with India. Uh, so I think that we ought to be able to parlay that, and Brazil, we’re in pretty good shape, into a pretty long lasting partnership, if you will. But when you think about twenty forty, twenty fifty, you also really have to take into consideration demographics because they have a huge impact. Now we are in relatively good shape. Our growth, we haven’t aged very much in the last couple of years because of the influx of, uh, foreign immigrants. And they tend to have a higher birth rate. So what this means is, we’re gonna have workers who can continue to provide to pensioners long after a Russia, a China, or many of these other nations, certainly our European friends who are in a real dilemma right now. So our immigration policy and our relatively high birth rate has kept us in pretty good shape when it comes to twenty forty, twenty fifty, and Social Security. We’ll be straining, but we’ll be all right. [applause]

Question: …With the growing threat of Iran and nuclear weapons what can you suggest in detail as far as a long term solution?

Richard Armitage: Well I think the long term solution in Iran comes from a realization that, look, the Iranians, uh, they don’t dislike the United States rank and file and they don’t want to be just like us. Uh, we’ve got, we’ve about two million Iranian Americans that come and go back and forth all the time, so we know a lot about what’s going on. I think we’ve got to use Russia who has a fair relationship and has made some very fine offers to the Iranians about their fuel cycle. Uh, we’ve got to, uh, make sure that we keep our European friends on side so that Iran cannot put new investments into their dilapidated oil structures. They’re not realizing, uh, the very big percentage of what they should realize out of their oil revenue because they haven’t put any money, because of sanctions, into their oil, uh, infrastructure. So, I think if we’re patient, long term, and steady, keep all our friends on side, we can actually work that one out. I think we can. Uh, North Korea is a much more difficult situation. [applause]

Question: …You spoke of how you had many, uh, mistakes in your career. And many of them were big. What I’d like to know is, what do you do to cope with the stress and, uh, guilt that you had after making those mistakes?

Richard Armitage: Well each one was, was somewhat different. With my family, uh, I need to tell you the worst one. My daughter one day came to me and she said, “Dad, nobody ever wished their tombstone was inscribed, ‘I wish I’d worked another day at the office.'” And she really hit me right between the eyes with that. And I realize that she was saying that I’d ignored my family for my career. You know what? She was right. Uh, so I tried to rectify this. I tried to be more aware, spend more time. My wife and I were very fortunate we were able to adopt six children in addition to two biological children. And at least in my mind I was a much better in that home [garbled] for those six. Now maybe they wished they had it like the other two, and I’d be gone. I’ll let you ask them.

Uh, each one, each problem is sui generis. The one consistency is, always told the truth. This is the most important thing. Didn’t excuse it off on anyone else. It’s my problem and I have to fix it.

In terms of dealing with the stress of it, uh, I have a wife, I could talk to her. I exercised. That’s what I did. And I, I resolved in my mind, and I’m gonna make plenty of mistakes, and by the way, so are you. Each of you. Let’s not make the same one twice. That’s where you really say you screwed up. [applause]

Question: …India and China have disputed territory in northern India…I was wondering what America’s role is in, regarding this conflict, and since the territory’s been with India for fifty plus years, how do you think, with our tenuous relationship with both countries, how do you think America’s role should be in either using diplomacy or other measures in regard to [garbled].

Richard Armitage: Are you talking about the relation between Russia and India [garbled]? Or China, China, India rather?

Question: Northern India conflict.

Richard Armitage: Well China, in, um, two thousand three [garbled] actually negotiated an agreement with India on their disputed border area. The reason is, I mentioned in answering another question, China has such a need for stability they didn’t want to have external instability while they’re trying to maintain internal stability. That’s held pretty much. But I, uh, recently was in Delhi and, uh, the leader of the Congress of Indian Industries told me, he asked me, “How much foreign direct investment from China do you think we have in India?” And I said, “Why, I haven’t a clue.” He said, “Two hundred fifty thousand dollars.” And that’s deliberate. In other words, nothing. Nothing. They’re trying to keep China excluded. I think our role is, although we’ve developed a very close relationship, as is understandable with a democracy, with India, uh, is not to get in between the two. Uh, historically, uh, we have played a role, in nineteen eighty-nine, right after the, the election of George Bush, but before his inauguration, myself and a colleague were sent by Bush forty-one, uh, to China and India. The Chinese actually gave us a message to take to them, Rajiv Ghandi, who was the prime minister of India. We took it and then gave his answer back to the Chinese. And that’s a traditional role to the United States between those two countries. Sort of passing a message we feel we can be a friend to both though we’re not equal friendships. [applause]

Question: …When we imposed the economic sanctions on North Korea and the U.N. imposed them, we allowed China to ignore them and still give Korea the food, the supplies they needed to run the country. Why has the U.S. not taken a sta
nd on this in the U.N. , in general allowed China to do this?

Richard Armitage: Uh, because of the structure of the U.N. Security Council. In order to get, uh,where any permanent member can veto, China being a permanent member and Russia, they both have very strong views on the sanctions regime.  They think to some extent it’s necessary to show the North Koreans we’re all angry, but they don’t want to put too much pressure, they think it’s counterproductive. So they negotiated with us to change the sanctions from being mandatory to being, uh, suggested or whatever is the proper, I forget the word, to get the resolution. We acceded to that because we wanted the unanimous resolution. To veto it would just give sort of aid and comfort to the North Koreans. And I think in diplomatic terms, which is pretty warm beer generally, that’s not bad. That’s not bad. Uh, but when saying why do we let them get away with it, well, what are we going to do about it? They have a border area. We don’t. They, their view is, uh, they need stability in North Korea more than they need nuclear weapons out of North Korea. So they’re gonna do it. We have more influence over South Korea, but as I indicated in answer to the previous question, apparently the two previous governments spent a lot more money in North Korea than we had, we had come to know by a factor of about six. Uh, and that’s where ought to be putting our leverage, on somebody that we can have effect with, rather than China which we have little [garbled]. [applause]

Question: …Earlier you put extreme importance on our military bases in Japan.

Richard Armitage: Yeah.

Question: Um, however, some people, uh, believe that the reason we have so much military influence there, um, is because Japan’s own constitution prohibits, uh, [garbled] of military force. And I was wondering if they were able to amend that and have their own strong, uh, military if you think that our presence would or should, uh, change there.

Richard Armitage: Well, first of all, our presence in Japan hasn’t gotten anything to do with what people used to refer to as the cork in the bottle. That is, if China, excuse me, Japan would remilitarize if we weren’t on those bases. And so we stay at those bases just to cork their military capabilities. We’re there because it allows us to effect security cooperation throughout all of Asia. And we do. From those bases. Second, uh, the debate on what’s called Article Nine in the Constitution of Japan, which prohibits collective self defense, considered to be the antiwar clause, is being chipped away gradually and right now it’s very legitimate to speak publicly about getting rid of the prohibition on collective self defense. Ten years ago you couldn’t have done that. And most recently the lower house of Japan last week voted to allow Japanese maritime self defense force ships to go off the coast of Somalia. And not only to defend Japanese citizens and Japanese ships and Japanese goods, but also to defend foreigners and foreign goods. That’s as close to getting rid of that prohibition as you can imagine. Finally, if you look at the military forces of Japan today, they have more destroyers in their fleet than we have in our Pacific navies. And they’ve got more high performance aircraft in their air fleets than we have in the Pacific. So they’re already a competent military force. In terms of overall military spending we’re number one, they’re number seven, but it’s still pretty considerable. [applause]

Thank you all very much. [applause]