ENB:USA

December 12, 2007
Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Bill
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERGWASHINGTON — President Bush vetoed a children’s health measure on Wednesday afternoon, effectively killing Democrats’ hopes of expanding a popular government program aimed at providing insurance to children in lower-income and middle-income families.
“Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation, too,” the president said in a statement, reiterating his objections to the proposed expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, commonly known as S-Chip.
“I continue to stand ready to work with the leaders of the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to reauthorize the S-Chip program in a way that puts poor children first, moves adults out of a program meant for children, and does not abandon the bipartisan tradition that marked the original enactment of the S-Chip program,” Mr. Bush said. “In the interim, I call on the Congress to extend funding under the current program to ensure no disruption of services to needy children.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said Wednesday afternoon that an extension of the current S-Chip program would be speeded through the House before the end of the week, and that Democrats would keep trying to win passage of a bill to their liking.
“This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care,” Ms. Pelosi said at a Capitol news conference. She said the president’s supposed concerns about overspending were illogical because taxes on tobacco would pay for the program’s expansion.
The veto was the seventh of Mr. Bush’s presidency, and the second of the children’s health bill, which Mr. Bush had rejected in a similar form in October. Congress sent an updated version of the legislation to Mr. Bush 10 days ago, and he had until Wednesday to either reject the bill or let it become law.
The veto continues the president’s increasingly contentious battle with Congressional Democrats over spending. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have been trying to wrap up their annual appropriations work by rolling 11 spending bills into one, but Mr. Bush has threatened to veto the immense measure, and the Democrats’ plans appeared in flux Wednesday afternoon.
If Congress sustains the president’s veto of the children’s health bill, leaders of both parties say they hope to pass a one-year extension of the S-Chip program. Their aim is to include enough money in the measure to maintain current levels of enrollment, estimated at 6.6 million children.
To achieve that goal, the Congressional Budget Office says, Congress would need to provide at least $5.8 billion, $800 million more than the current level of spending. The bill Democrats sent to Mr. Bush would have increased spending by $35 billion, bringing the total to $60 billion over five years, and would have added another four million children to the rolls.
“This Congress failed to send the president legislation that puts children first, and instead they sent for a second time one that would allow adults onto the program, expand to higher incomes, and raise taxes,” said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary

Paper no. 2499 12-Dec.-2007
UNITED STATES: STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF RUSSIA’S RESURGENCE
By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Introductory Observations
Russia’s strategic resurgence is no longer in doubt. It has to be accepted as a given by the global strategic community. What may be debatable is as to in what time frame Russia’s strategic resurgence emerges effective enough to be a challenge to the world’s unipolar power, namely the United States.
President Putin at the last Munich Conference and in a State Address to his nation has amply made it clear that (1) Russia is not willing to accept the unipolar dominance of the United States on global strategic affairs, and (2) Russia is determined to emerge as an “independent power center” in global affairs.
Russia’s intentions in declaratory terms should leave no one in doubt as to the direction in which Russia is headed, least of all the United States.
Russia has made considerable progress in this direction in all spheres – strategic, political, economic and military. Russia has politically made inroads into the United States traditional spheres of influence in Europe, the Middle East, South East Asia and East Asia.
Russia’s strategic positioning in these critical regions can be expected to follow with the modernization of her strategic assets and upgradation of her military forces.
The aim of this paper is to examine the strategic implications of Russia’s resurgence on United States national interests – It is intended to focus on the following aspects:
The Global Balance of Power Challenged Russia’s Emergence as a Rival Political Power Center United States Hold on Global Energy Security under Challenge United States Strategic Options to Meet Challenge of Russian Resurgence The Global Balance of Power Challenged
The global balance of power which was so heavily weighted in favor of the United States stands challenged by Russia’s strategic resurgence. United States strategic predominance and the global political influence that is generated will now be under increasing challenge from Russia as it positions itself in the world’s strategic regions.
With no strategic distractions like the United States faces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia would therefore enjoy a certain strategic vitality and flexibility in global strategic affairs.
At the global level, in terms of balance of power, the United States has to contend with Russia and China acting in unison due to their contemporary strategic convergences against the strategic hemming-in policies that the United States imposed on both Russia and China.
The emerging global balance of power has already generated strategic unease in the United States and this stands manifested in the planned missile defense deployments on Russia’s Western peripheries and the strategic geometries in East Asia sponsored by the United States in the form of the USA-Japan-India Trilateral and the USA-Japan-Australia-India Quadrilateral.
Deviating a bit it needs to be said that India’s present Government unwittingly walked into the strategic power games of the United States in East Asia aimed at China and Russia. No wonder the strategic reverberations from Russia and China against India were not long in coming.
The global balance of power would no longer be characterized by United States unipolar strategic predominance. The global balance of power is headed towards a multi-polar structure which the United States perceives is not in its strategic interests.
Russia’s Emergence as a Rival Political Power Center
Russia has already emerged as a rival political power centre by politically positioning itself in all the important regions of the world. The United States would now be forced to figure-in Russia’s presence in these regions in its political calculus.
In Europe, despite the European Union countries being part of the Atlantic Alliance led by the United States what cannot be shrugged off by these countries is their Russian connection in terms of energy supplies carried by pipelines from Russia. Europe has more than a 25% dependency on Russian energy supplies.
The United States is not in a position to displace Europe’s energy dependence on Russia from alternative sources. Europe’s energy security therefore is critically tied to Russia and this has both strategic and political implications for the United States.
Russia under President Putin has used its energy supplies as an effective foreign policy tool for political influence. Europe is one such example. The Paris Summit in 2006 attended by Russia, Iran and Germany is an example.
President Putin’s three forays in the Middle East between 2005 and 2007 breached the United States strategic and political hold on this energy rich region. President Putin visited Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and Iran. With the exception of Iran and Palestine all the other Middle East countries have been US allies of long standing. The fact that they welcomed the Russian President indicates their hedging strategies generated by Russia’s rising resurgence, the Russian hold on Iran which is perceived as a threat in the region and the loss of prestige of the United States in the Islamic World. The United States would not like to lose its pre-eminence in the Middle East and this region promises to be the arena for strategic tussles with Russia.
In South East Asia, Russia has politically positioned itself in the form of supplies of Russian military hardware to the countries in the region, besides President Putin’s personal visits.
In East Asia, the Russia-China phalanx presents a strong combination against the bilateral security alliances web of the United States.
In a reaction to the growing strategic onslaught of Russia and China in this region the United States for the first time has resorted to unilateral security mechanisms like the “Trilateral” and the “Quadrilateral”
Russia has already resumed strategic reconnaissance flights over the Pacific Ocean including touching the major US base at Guam. It will be soon commence Russian naval deployment in the Pacific.
In all these regions discussed above, the United States has to take notice of the growing Russian political positioning as a precursor to its eventual strategic presence as a challenge to the United States strategic predominance.
United States Hold on Global Energy Security Under Challenge
Russia has mounted two onslaughts on the United States hold on global energy security resources.
President Putin has suggested a new energy security model in which the energy security for consumers of oil would be ensured in a long term perspective coupled with security of markets for the oil producers. The underlying intent in this model is to break the monopoly of US and Western oil firms on global oil prices by their “spot market” mechanism.
In parallel, with Russia holding the world’s largest reserves of natural gas, the Russian President during his visit to Qatar recently had advocated the formation of a “gas cartel” comprising Russia, Qatar and Iran on the lines of OPEC. This too has economic implications for US and Western companies
United States Strategic Options to Meet Challenge of Russian Resurgence
At the first instance, it can be stated that the United States stands over-preoccupied with its deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. This limits United States strategic resilience to deal with the Russian challenge.
Strategically again, the United States may be tempted once again to impose an “arms-race” on Russia to dilute its resurgence. This may not be a workable and effective proposition. Russia has already earmarked over $180 billions over the next eight years for strategic modernization from its burgeoning oil revenues.
Russia is no longer constrained by financial resources to meet an ‘arms-race’ challenge from the United States.
Other options like regime change, democracy movements and other forms of subversion to limit Russia’s resurgence are unlikely to work as Russia’s sustained economic growth rates of 6.7% have lowered unemployment rates etc which are the normal causes of disaffection and which provide the fodder for such subversion.
Concluding Observations
Russia under President Putin has made a dramatic recovery from the depths to which it was lowered in the Yeltsin years when he as the Russian President was in the vice-like grip of the United States. On all available indicators, the United States has few workable options to arrest Russia’s resurgence and mounting a strategic and political challenge to the United States.
The United States today is in an imperial overstretch and is in a limited position to offer counter-challenges to Russia.
The United States has to adapt its self to the emergence of a multi-polar world and share the global strategic space with Russia.
(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)

December 14, 2007
Bitter Divisions at Climate Talks
By THOMAS FULLER and ELISABETH ROSENTHALNUSA DUA, Indonesia — Amid growing frustration with the United States over deadlocked negotiations at a United Nations conference on global warming, the European Union threatened Thursday to boycott separate talks proposed by the Bush administration in Hawaii next month.
Humberto Rosa, the chief delegate from Portugal, which holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said the discussions next month would be meaningless if there were no deal at the conference this week on the resort island of Bali.
Germany’s environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, told reporters here, “No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting.” He was referring to the formal name of the proposed American-sponsored talks.
The goal of the Bali meeting, which is being attended by delegates from 190 countries and which is scheduled to end Friday, is to reach agreement on a plan for a future deal to reduce greenhouse gases.
The escalating bitterness between the European Union and United States came as former Vice President Al Gore told delegates in a speech that “My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.”
Mr. Gore arrived at the conference from Norway, where he, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to alert the world to the danger of global warming. He urged delegates to agree to an open-ended deal that could be enhanced after the Bush administration leaves office and the United States policy changes.
“Over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now,” Mr. Gore said to loud applause. “You must anticipate that.”
There appears to be broad consensus among the delegates that a new agreement on climate change should be ready by 2009, in time to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the current agreement that limits emissions by all wealthy countries except the United States, which signed the Kyoto agreement but has refused to adopt it. Gaping differences remain between countries over how to share the burden of switching from types of energy that contribute to global warming.
The United States and the European Union remain at odds on many major points, including whether an agreement signed here should include numerical targets, a move that the United States and a few other countries, including Russia, oppose.
The emerging economic powers, most notably China and India, also refuse to accept limits on their emissions, despite projections that they will soon become the dominant sources of the gases.
“I’m very concerned about the pace of things,” Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is playing host to the meeting, said Thursday.
The United Nations released fresh data on Thursday confirming what it called the planet’s continued and alarming warming.
The 10 years ending in 2007 were the warmest on record, said Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, citing data taken since the late 1800s from a global network of weather stations, ships and buoys.
“It’s very likely the warmest period for at least the last 1,000 or 1,300 years,” he told reporters.
The data did not surprise scientists — every recent decade has been warmer than the previous one — but in releasing the numbers here the agency hoped to spur the 190 deadlocked governments into reaching a deal that would set a deadline for a global climate change agreement.
Disagreements exist across a wide range of issues and between numerous blocs of countries but the United States has come under especially strong criticism here by countries rich and poor and by its own domestic critics.
“The best we hoped for was that the U.S. would not hobble the rest of the world from moving forward,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit American organization. “Our delegation here from the States has not been able to meet that low level of expectation.”
Paula Dobriansky, the head of the American delegation, said Thursday that she was committed to obtaining an “environmentally effective and economically sustainable” agreement by 2009.
“We are working very hard to achieve consensus,” she told reporters.
Delegates here have seen two faces of America: the cautious negotiators, who have sought to water down the more ambitious goals of the European Union; and the more activist voices, from people like Mr. Gore and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who gave a speech on the sidelines of the conference.
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Bloomberg criticized both the Bush administration and Congress for not being aggressive enough in addressing global warming.
“There’s a belief that the United States should not do anything until all the other governments are willing to go along and do it at the same time,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “We should be doing this regardless of whether the world is following or not.”
The World Meteorological Organization said Thursday that the world’s average surface temperature had risen by 0.74 degrees Celsius, or 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit, since the start of the 20th century. To the general public that may seem a modest rise, but scientists consider it alarming in the context of historical shifts in temperature.
The difference between temperatures today and an ice age is only 5 or 6 degrees Celsius (9 or 10.8 Fahrenheit), according to Mr. Jarraud of the World Meteorological Organization.
Several weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nation’s leading scientific body on the topic, released its gloomy assessment of warming that is being cited by European delegates here as a clarion call. Climate change was “unequivocal,” the report concluded.
“Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years,” the report said. Greenhouse gases were very likely the dominant force driving up temperatures now, it said.
The panel, made up of hundreds of scientists, releases its assessment of the data and science on climate change every five years.
Thomas Fuller reported from Nusa Dua, Indonesia, and Elisabeth Rosenthal reported from Rome.