Unit 3

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

1. Historical Overview of US Foreign Policies
2. American Demographic Exceptionalism and Technological Innovations
3. US Foreign Policies: American Hemisphere; Asia-Pacific; Middle East

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

A. Definition of Terms:
Foreign Policy – a nation’s external goals and the techniques and strategies used to achieve them
Diplomacy –the total process by which states carry on political relations with each other; settling conflicts
among nations by peaceful means
economic aid – assistance to other nations in the form of grants, loans, or credits to buy American
products
technical assistance – sending experts with technical skills in agriculture, engineering, or business to aid
other nations
foreign policy process – the steps by which external goals are decided and acted on
national security policy – foreign and domestic policy designed to protect the independence and political
and economic integrity of the united states; policy that is concerned with the safety and defense of
nation
national security council – a board to advise the president on matters of national security

Making Foreign Policy

B. Constitutional Powers of the President

1. executive power – ‘preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the US”
2. Commander in chief – been involved in wars
3. Power to make treaties, provided that 2/3 of the senators present concur (executive agreements - a
binding international obligations made between chiefs of state without legislative sanction
4. Appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; power to recognize foreign governments
through receiving their ambassadors
5. Other sources:
(a) has access to information from the CIA, state department,, and defense department. This
carries with it the ability to make quick decisions – and that ability is used often;

(b) a legislative leader who can influence the amount of funds that are allocated for different
programs – can increase defense spending and decrease non-defense spending; and,

(c) can influence public opinion - can command the media – appeal to patriotic sentiment and
sometimes fear and can make the people think that their foreign affairs is fair and necessary.

(d) can commit the nation morally to a course of action in foreign affairs – once he made the
commitment, the congress finds a difficulty in backing down from the commitment.

C. Sources of Foreign Policy within the Executive

1. Department of State
a. supervises relations with other countries
b. ambassadors and diplomatic corps but set aside in case of more important concerns

2. National Security Council

a. advise the president on information on the integration of domestic, foreign, and military
policies relating to the national security
b. provide policy continuity from one administration to the next
c. composition: president, vice president, secretaries of state and defense, director of
emergency planning, and often the chair of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of the CIA
d. used in just anyway the president wants to use it
e. national security adviser is to advise the president

3. Intelligence community
a. government agencies involved in gathering information about the capabilities and
intentions of foreign governments and engaging in covert activities to further American foreign policy
aims

b. Composition
1. Central Intelligence Agency – overt information gathering as well as covert actions; covertly aided
in the overthrow of foreign leaders; found in the 1970s to be routinely spying on American citizens
domestically; from military to economic intelligence; used the US Information Agency particularly its
Voice of America to spread information and propaganda throughout the world on behalf of the
American government and from an American point of View

2. Department of Defense – bring all of the activities of the American military establishment under the
jurisdiction of a single department headed by a civilian secretary of defense; Pentagon
 a. National security agency
b. Defense intelligence agency
c. Bureau of intelligence and research in the department of state
d. Federal bureau of investigation
e. Army intelligence
f. Air force intelligence
g. Department of treasury
h. Drug enforcement administration
i. Department of energy

D. Domestic sources of foreign Policy

1. elite and mass opinion – elites in American business, education, communication, labor, and religion try
to influence presidential decision making through several strategies e.g. publicizing the issues, use of
the media – capture the attentive public who likely transmit their opinions to the less-interested
members of the public through conversation and local leadership

2. military industrial complex – mutually beneficial relationship between the armed forces and defense
contractors; pentagon has supported a large sector of the economy through defense contracts, in
addition of supplying retired army officers as key executives to large defense-contracting firms;
department of defense employs almost 350 lobbyists on Capitol Hill; it maintains some 2,850 public
relations representatives I the Us and in foreign countries

E. Major Foreign Policy Themes

1. avoiding entanglements - due to its perception of corrupt European governments; its geographical
distance, avoid entangling alliances

2. 19th century Isolationism: Monroe Doctrine – the policy statement which set out three principles: (1)
European nations should not establish new colonies in the western Hemisphere, (2) European nations
should not intervene in the affairs of independent nations of the Western Hemisphere, and (3) the united
States would not interfere in the affairs of European nations

Throughout the 19th century is characterized by isolationism: a period of abstaining from an active role
in international affairs or alliances, which characterized most of the nineteenth century

3. Interventionism and World War I – involvement in foreign affairs, actions directed at changing or
preserving the internal political arrangements of the nations; declaration of war against Germany was
intended to protect American properties and lives

With their geopolitical position completely unhampered by international developments, upon their re-emergence
the Americans immediately became the ultimate arbiter of global affairs.
 In 1898, the Americans seized nearly all of Spain's remaining overseas empire, including the Philippines,
Cuba, and Puerto Rico. By war's end, the Americans had 160 vessels, 114 of which were steel, placing it
in the world's top five naval forces.
 In 1899, the Americans adopted the Open Door policy, ostensibly to allow trade with China. The policy
was expressly designed to limit Japanese options and was certain in time to provoke a Japanese military
response. While Europeans held most of the trade concessions in China, none of the European powers
had the ability to project sufficient power into East Asia to protect them in the presence of Japanese
action. The Americans, however, could. Open Door set the stage for the elimination of the European
presence in Asia.
 In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt announced his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, indicating that
the United States would proactively intervene in Latin American affairs expressly to minimize any and all
European influence there; over the next twenty years the United States dispatched troopsto the region
thirty-two times. Not once were they opposed by an extra hemisphere power.
 In 1905, the Roosevelt administration arbitrated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, splitting the disputed
territories so that the Russians and Japanese not only had hopelessly entangled economic interests, but
also something that Russia and Japan had never had before: a land border. The peace deal guaranteed
future military conflict.
 The Americans completed the Panama Canal in 1914. As if the American territories were insufficient to
sustain American power, they had now permanently locked Mexico, Central America, and the northern
third of South America into the American economic orbit. The canal also sliced nearly a month off the time
it would take for their naval vessels to switch between Atlantic and Pacific theaters, adding strategic
flexibility that no preceding naval power had ever possessed.
 In 1917, the Americans became the last major belligerent to join
World War I, where they turned a German near victory into capitulation.
The Americans helped to implement a peace deal that resurrected Russia and humiliated Germany, but
ensured that Germany would be able to rebuild and rearm. A second conflict was guaranteed to ignite,
and ignite a good long distance from American territory.

From 1917 on-just twenty years after the Americans had reinserted themselves into the world with the Spanish-
American War-the United States became the determining factor in European affairs rather than the other way
around. It was neither pretty nor nice, but neither was it unique. Every naval power in history has tried to keep its
land-based rivals bottled up with each other rather than floating navies that could challenge them. What set the
Americans apart was that their home territories were so rich and so removed that they could keep the disruption,
conflict, and bloodshed in a different hemisphere.
 4. era of Internationalism – triggered by the bombing of the Pearl Harbor – horrors experienced by the
survivors had aroused public outrage and the first time that American soil was never attacked; produced
a permanent change in the size of American government defense spending; its military bases had
increased from 3 in 1940 to almost 450 at the end of WWII

But as awesome as the sheer magnitude of the American war effort was in absolute terms, it paled in comparison
to the United States' strategic position when the dust settled.

 The Germans and the Soviets had lost 7 million and 26 million people, or about 11 and 15 percent of their
total populations, respectively. The Americans had lost "only" 420,000 people, in relative terms one-thirty-fifth
the German losses and one-forty- fifth the Soviet losses.
 At war's end the Americans had forces-on friendly terms-in the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Italy,
Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, and Norway. The European geographical advantage
over the non-American world remained so huge that even in the ashes of the post-war devastation the
occupied Western European states still collectively represented one-quarter of global economic power.
 There was little industrial capacity outside of the United States. The United Kingdom was running at full
throttle, but running at full throttle on materiel and capital provided almost exclusively by the Americans. Only
the Soviets had an independent system-a system that had depended upon U.S. materiel for the past three
years. And even with that assistance it was still less than one-third of American economic output.
 Not only had most of the world's industrial and consumption capacity been destroyed, but the war had been
so destructive that it had taken as well the bulk of the imperial militaries. Only the Soviets still had an army,
but bereft of naval transport it was an army that was not deployable in a global sense.
 The Americans controlled the oceans. In mid-1939, the Americans had 178 surface combatants and 58
submarines in the water out of a total fleet of less than 400 vessels. On the war's final day only six years later
the Americans had a 6,800-vessel navy with over 1,000 major surface and submarine combatants. As
important, the navies of every major naval combatant of every significant prewar power had been relocated to
the seabed. The United Kingdom was the sole exception, and it could no longer operate without assistance
beyond European waters. For the first time since the onset of the blue-water era in the early sixteenth
century, there was only one navy on the oceans.

It was the single greatest concentration of power that the world had ever seen.
The question was what to do with the war gains. One obvious option was to absorb the Axis and Western
European empires into itself and establish a Pax Americana over the global system.

5. the Cold War ideological, political, and economic impasse that existed between the United States and
the Soviet Union following WW II

Waging Peace: Free Trade as a Weapon

The three-point American plan was nothing short of revolutionary. They called it "free trade":

(a) Access to the American market. Access to the home market was the holy grail of the global system to that point. If
you found yourself forced to give up the ability to control imports, it typically meant that you had been defeated in a
major war (as the French had been in 1871) or your entire regime was on the verge of collapse (as the Turks were in
the early twentieth century). A key responsibility of diplomats and admirals alike was to secure market access for their
country's businesses. The American market was the only consumer market of size that had even a ghost of a chance
of surviving the war, making it the only market worth seeking.

(b) Protection for all shipping. Previously, control of trade lanes was critical. A not insubstantial proportion of a
government's military forces had to be dedicated to protecting its merchants and their cargoes, particularly on the high
seas, because you could count on your rivals to use their militaries to raid your commerce. As the British Empire
expanded around the globe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they found themselves having constantly to
reinvent their naval strategies in order to fend off the fleets of commerce raiders that the Dutch, French, Turks, and
others kept putting into play. The Americans provided their navy-the only one with global reach- to protect all maritime
shipping. No one needed a navy any longer.

(c) strategic umbrella. As a final sweetener, the Americans promised to protect all members of the network from the
Soviets. This included everything right up to the nuclear umbrella. The only catch was that participants had to allow
the Americans to fight the Cold War the way they wanted to.

Accepting the deal was a no-brainer, None of the Allies had any hope of economic recovery or
maintaining their independence from the Soviets without massive American assistance. There really was no
choice: Partner with the only possible consumer market, the only possible capital source, and the only possible
guarantor of security-or disappear behind the Iron Curtain. (Iron curtain – the term used to describe the division of Europe
between the Soviet Union and the West. Popularized by Winston Churchill in a speech portraying Europe as being divided by an iron curtain, with the
nations of Eastern Europe behind the curtain and increasingly under Soviet Union.)
As the strategic competition of the Cold War took firmer shape, the Americans were able to identify critical
locations in the geopolitical contest and invite key countries to join their trading system. Among the first post-war
expansions, the Americans approached none other than the defeated Axis powers.
If America's Western allies thought the deal was a boon, the Germans and Japanese perceived it as too good to
be true. The primary reason Germany and Japan had launched World War 11 in the first place was to gain greater access
to resources and markets. Germany wanted the agricultural output of Poland, the capital of the Low Countries, the coal of
Central Europe, and the markets of France. Japan coveted the manpower and markets of China and the resources of
Southeast Asia. Now that they
had been thoroughly defeated, the Americans were offering them economic access far beyond their wildest pre-war
longings: risk-free access to ample resources and bottomless markets a half a world away. And "all" it would cost them
was accepting a security guarantee that was better than anything they could ever have achieved by themselves. Bretton
Woods expanded swiftly:

 India joined shortly after independence, which at a minimum complicated any Soviet efforts to gain a toehold in
South Asia.
 Sweden, which controls the bulk of the Baltic coastline and boasts a potent regional navy and air force, joined in
the 1950s, denying the Soviets the ability to use the Baltic safely.
 Argentina's membership in the 1960s limited Soviet influence in Latin America by putting the most advanced
South American power in the other camp.
 After the failure of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Egypt jumped into the Bretton Woods pool, robbing the Soviets of
their largest client state in both the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin.
 Indonesian (1950), Singaporean (1973), and Thai (1982) membership both curtailed meaningful Soviet
penetration into the most valuable portions of Southeast Asia and eliminated any hope of the Soviets exercising
naval power in South or Southeast Asia.

The lure of Bretton Woods proved to be the critical component that made the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s a reality.
The unlikely partnership between America and China of course helped rework the strategic math of Southeast Asia in
the age of Vietnam, but that was only a small piece of a much larger puzzle. The Soviets had plenty of Pacific
coastline, but the only good ports they had access to were Chinese locales like Tianjin and Hainan Island. Once
China joined Bretton Woods, the Soviet Union's only remaining deep water, ice-free port was Petropavlovsk on the
Kamchatka Peninsula, a base so removed from Russian population centers that
it could only be supplied by air.

xxx
Containment – US diplomatic policy adopted by the Truman administration to “build situations of strength”
around the globe to contain communist power within its existing boundaries.
Truman doctrine – policy adopted by President Harry Truman in 1947 to halt communist expansion in
southeastern Europe
Since 1963, US has conducted underground tests of more than four hundred nuclear weapons,
whereas the USSR has conducted more than three hundred such tests
Confrontation in a nuclear world: closest was in 1962 – for 13 days, the US and the Soviets were close
to nuclear war, the soviets had decided to place offensive missiles 90 miles off the coast I Cuba. This was
photographed by an American U-2 spy plane on October 14, 1962. Kennedy and his advisers rejected the
idea of armed intervention, setting up a naval blockade instead. Then tension heightened when the Soviet
vessels carrying nuclear warheads appeared in Cuban waters. After intense negotiation between Washington
and Moscow, the Soviet ships turned around on October 25 and October 28 the soviet Union withdrew its
missile operations from Cuba in exchange of US agreement not to invade Cuba
Détente- relaxation of tension characterized by a direct cooperative dealing with cold war rivals and
avoiding ideological accommodation
Mutual Assured Destruction – a theory that if the united States and the Soviet Union had extremely
large and invulnerable nuclear forces that were somewhat equal, then neither would chance a war with the
other
Antiballistic Missile – a defense system designed to protect targets by destroying the attacking
airplanes or missiles before they reach their destination
Multiple, Independently Targetable, Warheads – multiple warheads carried by a single missile but
directed to different targets.
First Strike capabilities – the launching of an initial strategic nuclear attack before the opponent has
used any strategic weapons
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty – aimed to stabilize the nuclear arms competition between the two
countries
xxx
Throughout the Cold War, the grand geopolitic between the Americans and the Soviets raged as sharply as ever. But as
little as one tier down, things could not have been
more different. Quite intentionally, the American system suspended local geopolitical competitions, relieving Bretton
Woods members from needing to seek out markets or protect their trade flows. That freed America's allies from the need
to defend against age-old rivals, many of whom were now allies. A few examples:

(a) France and Germany didn't have to arm to protect themselves from each other; instead they collaboratively formed
the supra-governmental institution of the European Union, something that would have been laughable pre-war.
(b) Mid-tier European states such as Sweden and the Netherlands were able to focus on their trade and brokering strong
points with a minimum of effort to defense.
(c) With global trade lanes guaranteed, the need to occupy this or that location dissolved. The world's oldest wheat
producer Egypt-breathed free for the first time in two millennia.
(d) European colonies around the world were freed. The Southeast Asian states formed the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and with it their own-also American- guaranteed-free trade network.
(e) Japan no longer had need to prey upon the East Asian rim. With American security guarantees, South Korea, Taiwan,
and Singapore emerged as three of the world's most dynamic economies. China, for the first time in its history, existed
in a security environment that allowed it to consolidate free of outside interference.

xxx
Post Cold War:
Partners: American Allies in the New Era

1. Market. In times of global stability, the United States already boasts a market larger than any other by a factor of
three. As the global situation deteriorates, the U.S. market will tower above all others in its stability, size, and strength.
It will also be among the few that not only boast the demographic and financial capabilities to grow, but also possess
 the security and stability necessary to grow continuously. The United States will be one of only a scant handful of
developed countries with substantial populations of citizens in their twenties and thirties, making it the state to
experience consumption-led growth.

2. Capital. As the country with the greatest river network, the United States has a capital supply that is independent of
its demographics. American capital, however, will not even be limited to its ample domestic sources. The relative
stability of
the American system will make it a magnet for capital fleeing less stable lands. In times of global strength like the
1990s, some $5 trillion-over 6 percent of American GDP over the decade-fled to the United States. Just imagine the
sorts of volumes that will flee to the United States in times of global mass disruption. In a world of rapidly shrinking
volumes of capital, the Americans will hold the lion's share.

3. Security. While other countries will be forced to reallocate scarce resources to secure their defensive interests at
home and their economic interests abroad, the United States' geographic position and embedded, cordial relations
with Canada and
Mexico will spare the Americans that onerous cost. In fact, American defense spending may actually decrease while
available American forces increase. Part of the Bretton Woods deal is that the Americans would patrol the seas for all
and defend
the territory of all. That will no longer hold. This raises the distinct possibility that the United States' military posture will
return to the traditional role it played between 1898 and 1945: almost no foreign bases, but a posture of permanent
offense. The United States will once again be a country with a global military, but one free of global interests. This will
not only ensure that potentially hostile powers get nowhere near American shores, but will also enable the Americans
to intervene where and when and how they wish.

4. Trade. While the Americans are extraordinarily unlikely to provide freedom of the seas for the world at large, they will
still have a navy that is triple the power of the combined world in terms of its ability to project power. That is actually
more
in favor of the Americans than it sounds: At the beginning of this age, the United States will have twelve fully
deployable supercarriers against the combined fleet of the rest of the world's two, and those two will be British and
French. Nearly
every other navy on the planet is limited to coastal and support vessels. At the beginning of this age, only the
Americans have aircraft that can be based at home and yet bomb any location on the planet. That means that only the
Americans will
have the capacity to guarantee-or more importantly, deny shipments to or from any coast on the planet at any time.
Any ocean-borne trade that is to be sustainable will require-at a minimum-American disinterest.

(a) North America. In 2013 the United States exported roughly $1.6 trillion in goods and $680 billion in services,
while importing $2.3 trillion in goods and $450 billion in services. That sounds like a lot-it is a lot-but it isn't as bad
as it seems at first glance. The American economy settles in at a very non-dainty $16 trillion; its total trade
exposure in absolute terms may be the world's largest, but in relative terms it is below that of everyone but Brazil
and South Sudan-even Afghanistan is more internationally integrated. Additionally, what exposure the Americans
have is remarkably local: The United States' top two trading partners for decades have been Canada and Mexico,'
accounting for one-third-some $1.15 trillion-of the total U.S. trade portfolio. While NAFTA is by its very definition a
free trade agreement, it was negotiated separately from the global free trade order, and is legally and
administratively disconnected from the Bretton Woods system, complete with its own adjudication mechanism that
exists solely for the NAFTA signatories. The United States doesn't even need to patrol the oceans to keep the
trade open, since nearly all of it occurs either in territorial waters, the Gulf of Mexico, or via land routes. Bilateral
American-Canadian trade on the Ambassador Bridge, which links Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, is by
itself of greater volume than the total combined trade with all but four of America's other trading partners. NAFTA
and its CAFTA extension, which brings in the Central American states of Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El
Salvador, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic, are no-brainers for the Americans. All are already firmly
integrated into the American economic system independently of Bretton Woods. In essence, they are America's
backyard. The Americans can-easily-have their local trade without lifting a finger to support global trade.

(b) Cuba. The notable outlier from the NAFTA/CAFTA system is of course Cuba.
As a bastion of anti-Americanism since its revolution in 1959, Cuba has
been the plank in the eye of the American strategic position in the Western
Hemisphere for decades. This will not last, and not simply because Fidel
Castro will (probably) not live much longer. Cuba's problem is primarily economic. It doesn't collaborate with the
vibrant economic giant at its
doorstep and so is dependent upon limited trade with the wider world.
This is tolerable so long as the world as a whole lives by the rules of free
trade. Remove that characteristic, however, and Cuba, which lacks even a
merchant marine, is all on its own.
The Americans are certain to underscore that status, because Cuba's
ability to vex the United States comes from its position at the mouth of the
Gulf of Mexico. Capable military forces stationed on the island would be able to pinch closed the Florida and
Yucatan Straits, blocking most trade that would have entered or exited the greater Mississippi system. However,
"capable" military forces are not ones that could naturally originate on an island with as few resources as Cuba.
The danger to the United States from Cuba isn't from Cuba, but from larger powers that would ally with Cuba. The
Americans were willing to risk nuclear war during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis for just this reason. With the end
of the Cold War there wasn't a hostile blue-water navy anywhere in the world, so Cuba fell into strategic
irrelevance and Americans stopped paying it any attention. Fast-forward just a few years to a more mercantilist
world, however, andthe Americans are unlikely to tolerate a hostile country on such a strategically positioned
chunk of land so close to their internal trade ways. Whether it is because Havana wants to avoid destitution or
because the Americans force the issue, Cuba is about to be folded into the American
system.

(c) Colombia and Venezuela. Don't think of South America as a single entity, or even a single landmass. The
combination of the mountains of the Andes and the tropics of the Amazon divides the continent into pieces. The
 northern tier of states - Colombia and Venezuela-are for all practical purposes in another world. Only the most
remote and low-quality of roads link Colombia and Venezuela to their own tropical interiors, much less span the
thousand- plus miles of the Amazon Basin to the developed portions of Brazil. TheVenezuelan rail network does
not even connect to another country. Nearly all of the populated centers of both countries access the wider world
by looking north to the Caribbean rather than south to Brazil or west/east to each other. Integration with each
other would be difficult. Integration to the south is simply ludicrous. They are, in essence, part of the United
States' extended backyard, and integration with the Americans is the only natural economic partnership they can
hope for.
Colombia has accepted this fate - not a lightly made decision considering that under Teddy Roosevelt the
Americans sponsored a revolution in Colombia, helping carve the country of Panama out of Colombian territory.
Bogota has partnered repeatedly with the Americans on issues of security importance to Washington, namely
efforts to reduce cocaine and coca flows out of the Colombian highlands, and they have achieved a bilateral free
trade agreement.
Venezuela has not. Ideological opposition has landed Caracas with one
of the worst bilateral relationships with Washington of anywhere on earth.
This need not be the case. But since Venezuela does not actually border the
United States and it is not strategically located like Cuba, the Americans will
not make the decision for the Venezuelans. If Venezuela is to be anything
other than a dispossessed country with a crushingly impoverished population, it will need to start repairing
relations with the United States before it is too late. It isn't a pretty choice, but unlike most countries in the coming
era, at least Venezuela has the option of making a choice about its future. But time is running out, and it all comes
down to shale.
Venezuelan crude is so viscous and thick with contaminants that only
a handful of refineries anywhere in the world can process the stuff. Almost
all of those refineries are on the Gulf Coast of the United States.
Hugo Chavez, who ruled as Venezuela's president from 1999 until
his death in 2013, sought to reduce his country's economic connections
to the United States in general and those refineries in specific. His solution was to sell his crude to China and
subsidize the Chinese for the huge additional transport costs as well as compensate them for the lower volume of
products their refineries could produce from crude grades they were not designed to handle. The Chinese happily
accepted the subsidies, picked up the crude from the Venezuelans, sailed it north to the Gulf of Mexico, sold it to
the Americans, and pocketed the difference.

(d) Asia.
1. Thailand is in many ways America’s favorite ally. The Thais occupy an interesting piece of real estate: a
coastal bowl valley on a fantastically insulated bay adjacent to an open plateau, all surrounded by jungle
mountains so impregnable that even after seventy years of Bretton Woods only coastal rail corridors lead out
of the country. That protection has allowed the Thais to develop with a minimum of interference from outside
powers regardless of era, enabling them to hold on to their independence even at the height of the European
imperial age. Thailand's mix of geographies grant
it a capital-intensive, high-value-added industrial-technocratic society
around its Bangkok core, but also a more agrarian highland interior that
benefits from a modest amount of raw materials. It isn't simply mainland
Asia's most secure state and best equipped to protect its own borders and
interests, it is also the only one that can interface with the outside world on
its own terms. Even better, perennial political discord between the Bangkok core and the inland plateau all but
guarantees that Thailand will never
pose a military threat to its neighbors. It is the perfect ally: It doesn't need
U.S. troops stationed on its soil, it doesn't need much economic help, and it
doesn't generate much heartburn. It is also a damnably useful friend due to its strategic position between
India, China, and the Southeast Asian trade
lanes. Additionally, Bangkok's extensive experience in dealing with its
somewhat squirrelly neighborhood means it can even offer the Americans
extensive security cooperation as a sweetener to any alliance deal.

2. Myanmar is a country that has been on America's blacklist for the past generation. Myanmar has three
things going for it. First, it has moderate volumes of a wide array of natural resources from oil and natural gas
to zinc and copper to hydropower and timber. As it is right next door to Thailand, the synergies are many and
obvious. Second, Myanmar's Irrawaddy River is the only river in the region that is navigable for any
reasonable length. If there is a part of the region that cannot just rapidly develop, but start to bootstrap its own
economy, it is Myanmar.
Third, the Myanmarese have a streak of paranoid mistrust of their
more powerful neighbors. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, this led to a de
facto alliance with China in the face of Western disapproval of Myanmar's
choice of political management system (i.e., military dictatorship). But in
the early 201Os, the Chinese started treating Myanmar as a province, and
such perceived intrusions into internal Myanmarese business resonated so
poorly that as of 2014 the Myanmar-Chinese relationship has imploded.
The result is a lurching democratization process in order to facilitate a
strategic opening to the very Western countries that the government so
distrusted for so long. You can count on the Myanmarese not to trust their
larger neighbors. Those larger neighbors-India and China-are precisely the sort of would-be regional
hegemons that the Americans would prefer to keep locked down. The mere continuing existence of Myanmar,
regardless of the flavor of the local government, achieves that all by itself.

3. Taiwan and South Korea are not so clear-cut. Strategically, they are
absolutely partners the Americans want. The two countries are smashed
between the Japanese and Chinese spheres of influence, incredibly competent in managing their own
defense, and could go nuclear over a long
weekend if they were particularly stressed.' But keeping them in America'scircle of allies will not come cheap.
 Both countries import nearly all of the
energy and raw materials they use, and their markets are too small to sup-
port the world-class industrial base they have developed under the Bretton
Woods regime. Keeping those economies alive and relevant would require
the Americans to maintain on-land military footprints in East Asia, and to
continue, at least in part, with the ocean-patrolling and trade-protecting
activities that they would so like to get out of. For instance, just these two
small countries require twenty supertankers of crude per month. That
would force the Americans to convoy tankers from at least Southeast Asia,
and maybe even the Persian Gulf, as well as maintain transpacific trade
access so that Korean and Taiwanese goods can be sold into the American
market. These two traditional allies will be the litmus test for just how far
the Americans are willing to go to support allies in the new era.

4. Singapore sits upon the world's busiest trade and energy transport artery, it is difficult to imagine a country
that gained more from the United States' forcing of free trade upon the world-or to imagine a country that will
suffer more from its removal. Singapore has greater trade and energy throughput than any other location on
the planet, the flows it manages form global benchmarks, and its considerable technocratic-industrial base is
funded almost entirely from its trade facilitation profits. Simply put, Singapore is free trade in physical form.
Without a global trade order, without the Americans protecting trade flows between East Asia and Europe and
energy flows between East Asia and the Middle East, Singapore has nothing ... except a damnably strategic
piece of land. If there is to be any trade between East Asia and Europe, or any East Asian purchases of
Middle Eastern energy, then Singapore is the place that would enable the Americans to short-circuit any East
Asian rival at any time without firing a shot. But this makes Singapore a
strategic ally, not an economic one. Bereft of American commitment to
patrol much beyond the Strait of Malacca itself, Singapore's economic fortunes will need to be recast in a far
narrower-and more local-net.

5. Australia and New Zealand. Between them they are low- to mid-cost reliable producers of nearly every
significant industrial and agricultural commodity under the sun: oil, natural gas, coal, uranium, aluminum,
wheat, fruits, vegetables, dairy, beef, and lamb. There is no more perfect mating to the resource-poor and
hungry states of Taiwan and Korea than the Anglos of Australasia.
While a commitment to keep trade lanes to the Middle East might be
more than the Americans are interested in, commitment to keep the far
shorter and less fraught lines to political and cultural mates in Australia and New Zealand would be
comparatively simple. The pair are also so physically removed from the Asian mainland that the defense
commitment required to maintain their sovereignty would be minimal. American involvement in Australasia
would also solve-at least partly-Singapore's problem. A web of trade among the United States, Korea,
Taiwan, Myanmar, Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand would put Singapore smack in the middle. In fact, in
the middle along with Singapore would be its current partners.

6. Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. All four of those Southeast Asian countries will never be
able to project meaningful amounts of power on the water. The first three are archipelagoes, but so
disassociated across distance that they cannot develop into a powerful empire as Japan did, or even maintain
a navy that might more than marginally threaten their neighbors. The fourth, Vietnam, has its northern and
southern populations so separated by distance and geography that simply solidifying internal integrity is a
century-long process that the Vietnamese are not even halfway through.
These weaknesses also create a very peculiar demographic geography. All
of the countries sport only lightly populated hinterlands, instead being
extremely urbanized with very dense population centers packed with people trying to carve out a better life for
themselves than is possible in tropical agriculture.
It is this odd characteristic that will make them so attractive to the
Americans. First, all are perennial sources of low-cost, low- to medium-
skilled labor. Second, that labor is already concentrated in the region's
urban centers; the concentration of supply both eases recruiting and keeps
labor and infrastructure costs down. Third, bracketed as these countries are by a mix of resource and energy
providers, financial powers, and mid- to high-tech manufacturers, everything is perfectly positioned for a
regional supply-chain network. All they need are sufficient food imports to feed their young, urbanized
populations-something the American agricultural sector is eminently capable of doing for everything besides
rice (and rice demand can be met from within Southeast Asia). Finally, collectively the Southeast Asian region
represents a market for American goods of over a half billion people-that's one larger than the Chinese coast
and far, far less politically complicated.
Convincing the Americans to treat Southeast Asia as a unit as the
above implies may not be a simple sell, but likely American commitments
will already ring the entire area, and no power within Southeast Asia could
possibly mount a threat to American interests. In fact, a vibrant and inter-
connected Southeast Asia would help keep China and India apart, while
involving the United States with a combined economy bigger than that of
its NAFTA/CAFTApartners.

AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHIC EXCEPTIONALISM AND THE FUTURE

OF U.S. MILITARY POWER
Susan Yoshihara

Introduction

American primacy defines world order. What was dubbed a "unipolar moment" in 1990 has lasted more than two decades.1
But how long will it last? Even before the United States emerged from the Cold War as the sole superpower, scholars
prophesied its imminent decline. Today, the rise of competitor economies, challenges from nontraditional military threats,
and the financial burden of policing the world all seem too much to sustain in the long term.2 In spite of this, some experts
project continued U.S. dominance, citing unique American political and economic characteristics. Americans now seem to
be exceptional in another way: their children. With the rest of the developed world facing plummeting fertility rates and the
cost of aging societies, the United States sustains a near-replacement level birthrate along with robust immigration. 3

The reasons for American demographic exceptionalism are not entirely known. Demographers have cited, in addition to
economic and political factors, cultural and normative reasons: affinity for religious practice, attitudes of optimism, and a
"frontier spirit" toward increasing population and urbanization.4 The question this chapter seeks to answer is: can
American demographic exceptionalism lead to continued American primacy, specifically military supremacy?

American power, from military might to normative influence, is founded upon its enormous economy. With an estimated
fifteen trillion dollar gross domestic product, the United States produces more than a fifth of the world’s goods and
services, and nearly 80 percent of its advanced and complex economy has transitioned to the services sector. 5 Though
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have garnered much public attention in the last several years, America's most valuable
military capability is its command and protection of the global commons—air, space, cyberspace, and above all the seas,
where its dominance is unprecedented. Sea control allows the United States to command the flow of the worlds goods
since 90 percent of the world's trade is seaborne.6 Sea power allows the United States to prevent the rise of a peer
competitor in Asia and Europe, and so it has underpinned American grand strategy for two centuries.

Yet several challenges loom. Policymakers target the military budget—particularly shipbuilding—to cut the deficit while
military planners face skyrocketing costs for hardware and personnel. The United States already spends $50 billion a
year on military medical care, which is taking up an increasing share of the defense budget since it is sensitive to the costs of
escalating American health care. Active duty personnel cost twice what they did a decade ago with no increase in force
size, and operational costs have risen some 87 percent in the same period.7 These costs have crowded out force
modernization and research and development, which hold the promise of more affordable and more capable forces in the
long run.8 This stark reality led the U.S. secretary of defense Robert Gates to announce in 2011 a drastic $78 billion budget,
reducing the size of the Army and Marine Corps in the midst of fighting the war in Afghanistan. 9

There will be tremendous political pressure to cut even deeper. Aftershocks from the 2008 economic crisis and 2010
health-care and economic stimulus legislation have increased U.S. national debt and Washington's fiscal anxiety.
Adding to the angst is the retirement of the first wave of America's baby boomers, who turned sixty-five in 2011 and
became eligible for Medicare and Social Security benefits. The postwar generation will be drawing from these entitlements
even longer than expected due to increased longevity. Funded by the general revenue, much of the burgeoning
expenses will crowd out discretionary spending, of which defense is the largest portion.

Experts are deeply concerned that the wrong cuts today could hurt U.S. strategic interests tomorrow. While the military
budget is hefty at around $700 billion, it is less than 5 percent of the gross domestic product, a fraction of Cold War and
post-Cold War defense budgets.10 Some worry that defense budgets of recent history are inadequate to keep pace with
U.S. strategic and military requirements. Most important, there is concern that changes are not sufficiently tied to national
strategy, resulting in a crisis of military force planning, programming, and budgeting. A prestigious expert commission
headed by former national security advisor Stephen Hadley and former secretary of defense William J. Perry concluded
that "the aging of the inventories and equipment used by the services, the decline in the size of the Navy, escalating
personnel entitlements, overhead and procurement costs, and the growing stress on the force means that a train wreck is
coming in the areas of personnel, acquisition, and force structure."11

Thus while long-term demographic exceptionalism would seem to support the optimists' projection of continued
American primacy, political and economic realities could mitigate the advantage and vindicate the pessimists. This
chapter will weigh the evidence on both sides and make some conclusions about whether, and under what circumstances,
American demographic exceptionalism could tip the scales toward American power projection.

What Is Exceptional about American Demographic Trends?

In 2006, for the first time in thirty-five years, Americans produced enough children to replace themselves. Population
experts heralded the achievement of replacement fertility of 2.1 children per woman as a sign of "demographic health."12
The event put American demographic exceptionalism in the public eye, even if briefly, in 2007. Reaching a total population of
300 million in October 2006 also brought demographics to the fore.

The nation's total fertility rate (TFR)—a figure that represents the total number of children women bear—peaked at 3.8 in
1957, but fell precipitously during the 1960s and 1970s. In 1972, the rate seemed to fall below replacement, its nadir of 1.7 in
1976. It rose again in the late 1970s and 1980s, rising above 2.0 by the 1990s.13 Demographers explained that the 1970s
plunge in birthrates was because women were delaying childbirth due to career pursuits and later marriages, and not
because they were deciding against having children. This made the TFR—a mere snapshot of a lifetimes childbearing—
seem to dip and rise. In the future, the United Nations expects American fertility to fall only slightly to 1.9 between 2045 and
2050. If its highest estimates are borne out, the rate will be 2.35. The UN's 2010 forecast is even more optimistic, estimating
U.S. fertility will remain near replacement levels through 2100.14

As a result of its healthy fertility rates, steady immigration, and declining mortality, the U.S. population has increased
steadily over the last half century from 179.3 million to 308.7 million, according to the 2010 U.S. census. 15 It is expected to
keep climbing, but at an increasingly slower rate, to 403.9 million by 2050 according to the UN's medium variant
estimation.16 The UN's low variant estimation projects population decline after 2045, from 358.2 to 357.1 million by 2050. A
high variant assumption projects 455.6 million Americans, and if a constant fertility rate is assumed, there will be 425.2
million Americans in 2050.17 Americans are younger than citizens of almost every other developed country, ranking fifty-
first out of the 196 UN member nations with a median age of thirty-six and a half:1817 percent of Americans are over the
age of sixty, compared to the average of 21 percent for developed nations.

AGING OF THE DEPENDENCY RATIO

For every one hundred American workers in 2007, there were forty-nine children and old people, making this the lowest
dependency ratio in decades. This dependency ratio is expected to rise again by 2050, when the same number of
workers will support sixty-one dependents.19 What is significant is that the rise will be due to an increase in the elderly
population as baby boomers retire. 20 The child dependency ratio is not expected to change significantly, since the
number of children born per woman is expected to remain stable.21 While the dependency ratio was higher in 1960 than it is
today, a larger number of those dependents in 1960 were children. By 2050, the dependent old will outnumber the
dependent young. In other words, future American workers will not be investing in their own children so much as they will
be paying to support the old and the very old, who require expensive medical care with social security, the most
expensive medical costs occurring in the last few years of life. This matters because the growing share of federal funds
devoted to health care will be the most significant threat to the U.S. military budget in the coming decades.22

NORMATIVE ASPECTS OF ROBUST FERTILITY AND IMMIGRATION

Experts have explained the exceptional U.S. fertility rate in various ways, highlighting immigration as an important part of
the equation. Americans from Latin American origins have the highest fertility rate (2.9 children per woman), next are
African Americans (2.1), Asians (1.9), and Whites (1.86). Yet Hispan-ics do not represent enough of the population to
explain the trend entirely, and fertility has increased among Americans of all races and regions. Americans of European
descent maintain higher fertility rates than their counterparts in the old world. Most of the difference in fertility rates
between Europe and the United States is caused by the relatively high fertility among self-declared "Anglos" in the United
States.23

Analysts have pointed to certain social, cultural, and religious attitudes to explain the difference between American and
European fertility. Phil Longman notes that "in the USA . . . 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family
size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids."24 Citizens of both
the United States and Europe who say they attend church regularly, hold patriotic values, and value community, duty, and
service ahead of individual self-fulfillment are far more likely to have children and to have more than one child. What is
more, Longman says, "a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least
50% per generation and quite quickly disappear." Longman says this is because in the United States, "the 17.4% of baby
boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of
the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids."25

Optimism is another reason for higher total fertility. For example, German leaders credited positive attitudes among
young people for a 30 percent increase in births in 2007, nine months after their country hosted a successful World Cup
tournament and their national team took third.26 Closer to home, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled New York City's plan
for accommodating a million more people into the aging city of 8 million, saying, "The predicament of our future is also our
hope. The very same population growth that intensifies the challenges we face also offers us the resources for meeting
them, and the means needed to help achieve sustainability."27 The mayor's remarks also evinced an attitude of American
expansionism and frontier spirit: "By 2030, our population will reach more than 9 million—the equivalent of adding the
populations of Boston and Miami to the five boroughs. The result is a surge that is taking our population to new heights,
and our city into uncharted waters.... Our growing New York will always be the most diverse city on earth. It will remain a
magnet for artists, entrepreneurs, and ambitious immigrants from every corner of the globe."28

Bloomberg's positive approach to population growth is characteristically American. John Quincy Adams reported in
1817 that Europeans feared "the gigantic growth of [American] population and power" would make it "a very dangerous
member of the society of nations." 29 The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) predicted in 1945 that diverging
attitudes would bring diverging population trends despite economic parity: "It may be asked whether the realization that
the expansion—which is so central in American thought and feeling—is likely so soon to cease in its demographic
aspect, will alter the attitude which has grown up with regard to immigration."30

The RIIA report predicted that the tight U.S. quota system and restriction of American immigration to European countries
would eventually spark transatlantic competition as European armies felt the strain of dwindling pools of youth.31 In fact,
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, adducing support from American attitudes about civil rights, overcame this
potential rivalry and solved the supply problem.

Unlike Japan and Europe, the United States had exceptional flexibility in tailoring immigration to meet its economic needs.
Americas ability to generate an industrial working class in less than twenty years in the late nineteenth century and
supplement its skilled technical class during the 1980s demonstrated this sort of demographic flexibility.32 These are feats
that, by some accounts, Europeans could not achieve without "massive social dislocation" and which Asia cannot
accomplish on a broad scale.33 The economic advantage in the coming decades could be significant, since by 2050 86
percent of U.S. population increase will be due to immigrants or their U.S.-born descendants.34

Military Recruiting Advantages from Demographic Exceptionalism

Three aspects of American population dynamics will bolster the future force. First, the U.S. military will draw from a much
larger and more ethnically diverse pool of talent than any major power in the coming decades, due to both new
immigration and the "echo boomer" effect—the relatively large generation born to the baby boomers. The working-age
population will increase from 186 million in 2005 to 255 million in 2050. The share of population increase attributable to
immigrants alone will increase from 15 percent to 23 percent between 2005 and 2050, while the White share will decrease
from 68 percent to 45 per-( cut of working-age adults. The growth in the next generation of workers, those seventeen and
younger, is projected to be entirely due to immigration, rising from 73 million to 102 million between 2005 and 2050. In
that period, more than one third of American children will be immigrants or their progeny, up from a quarter today. About
four out of five immigrants are working-age adults, and so immigrants will make up almost a quarter of the recruitable
population by 2050 (up from 15 percent in 2005).35 Even while the rate of growth in the immigrant population today is not
unprecedented, the overall percentage of immigrants is expected to reach 15 percent of the population between 2020 and
2025, slightly exceeding the record highs of the 1890s and 1910s.

Some of this advantage was mitigated by the fact that recruiting noncitizens was restricted after the events of September
11,2001. Recruiters were no longer allowed to enlist prospective service members unless they have a green card in hand.
Defense analysts from different political perspectives collaborated to address the restriction, and to push American
policymakers to think even more broadly about recruiting noncitizens. Michael O'Hanlon and Max Boot proposed solving
any recruiting shortfalls in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps by exchanging four-year enlistments for the prize of a green
card.36 They pointed out that this move is not unprecedented. American colonists used German and French soldiers during
the Revolutionary War and locals in counterinsurgency operations in the Philippines.37 In making a similar argument, army
analyst George Quester has noted Frances continued and extensive use of its Foreign Legion and Britain's Nepalese
Gurkhas.38
Today, the U.S. military prides itself as one of the most racially egalitarian institutions in the country, and military force
planners are open to immigrant-friendly recruitment policies. For example, at Congressional hearings regarding immigration
legislation, Pentagon officials weighed in to move along legislation that would allow them to recruit the children of illegal
immigrants who were born in the United States.39 Additionally, they have already recruited foreigners as "heritage recruits,"
to lend linguistic and cultural expertise to the war on terrorism, and one heritage recruit has been awarded the prestigious
Purple Heart. The waiting period for citizenship for military foreign nationals can be cut down from ten years to one year
and fees can be eliminated. This provides an attractive recruitment tool, and recruiters report the need to make more im-
migrants aware of the opportunity.40

A second reason U.S. demographics uniquely benefit the military is the positive effects that large families have on
military recruitment. Larger families are generally more likely to send a son or daughter to the military, 41 and in the
United States larger families are more likely to be headed by parents holding conservative values.42 These parents, in
turn, are more likely to put values such as national service ahead of more individualistic concerns, which can have positive
effects for recruiting.43 The U.S. Army undertook a $1.35 billion media campaign directed at parents for this reason.44 A third
reason US. demographics benefit military recruiting is that regional demographics and military enlistments have mutually
reinforcing effects. Recruitment for, and representation in, the armed forces is highest in the South and West. 45 These
are the same regions the 2010 Census shows to have the highest growth rates and which are projected to have the
highest growth through 2025.46 Conversely, the recruit-to-population ratio is lowest in New England and other states
projected to show relatively static growths in population in the coming decades.47

THE VALUE OF THE ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE

Some of the same attitudes that explain U.S. demographic exceptionalism also account for U.S. military superiority. Even
more than technological advancement, leadership experts credit such characteristics as driving leadership to the lowest
levels as a key advantage of the all-volunteer military and the reason it prevailed in the Cold War.48 This analysis
assumes that the United States will maintain the nearly forty-year-old All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in the decades ahead.
Americans resorted to a draft only four times in their history: the Civil War, two World Wars, and during the Cold War
(the longest period in which the draft was in place). While some politicians raised the possibility of its reinstatement
during the Iraq War,49 defense leadership eschews the idea, warning of a significant decrease in quality and diversity of
servicemen under the draft, with insufficient fiscal benefits.50 The quality of the All-Volunteer Force has been vindicated by
its performance in recent wars. U.S. military recruiters and military commanders have translated American demographic
exceptional-ism into unprecedented levels of service quality and operational capability, with relatively few combat casualties
in comparison to previous wars.

The AVF is younger than the broader American population, more educated, and more racially diverse.51 More than half the
enlisted force is younger than twenty-five, while the same age group in the general population is 14 percent." I ligh school
graduates among those twenty-five years or older account for 98.6 percent of enlisted personnel, compared to 86.6 percent
in the population.'1' Among active duty personnel, 64 percent are White, 17 percent are Black, 11 percent are Hispanic,
and 3.4 percent are Asian, whereas in the general popul.i lion 80 percent of the general population is non-Hispanic
White.54 In general, 15 percent of the forces are women, with the highest percentage (19 percent) in the Air Force and the
lowest (6 percent) in the Marine Corps.55

Part of the reason the AVF was able to boost retention despite wartime operational tempos is the camaraderie of shared
combat. Since 2008, another reason is the souring economy, which makes staying in military service more attractive.
Before then, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars created the double pressure of increasing troops while facing the toughest
recruiting landscape since the Vietnam War. The "propensity package"—a combination of factors the Navy uses to indicate
whether a youth will enlist—reached its lowest point since the All-Volunteer Force was established in 1973.56 The package
includes the disposition of parents, whose resistance to allowing their sons and daughters to join the military is seen as a
major hurdle for recruiters.

While the Navy and Air Force had little trouble with retention as they reduced their total force numbers, the U.S. Army and
Marine Corps faced more daunting challenges of family separation and personal hardship as troops returned from third
and fourth deployments to war zones. Even though some recruiting restrictions had to be loosened during the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, including the preclusion of criminal records, they were quickly reinstated. In fact, restrictions are so
tight that only 25 percent of the available population can be recruited.57

The case of the National Guard in New England shows that the expense of recruiting and retaining the AVF
pays dividends in readiness. Monetary and career incentives allowed the United States to continue to fight two
wars and provide homeland security forces, despite an adverse recruiting and retention climate. The recruiting
landscape in these states is arguably the most unfavorable in the country, yet recruiters reached their goal
recruitment figures due to five incentives they could offer young people: student loans, bonuses, dental benefits,
health care, and affordable life insurance.58 Support for education includes federal and state tuition assistance
and the post-September 11, 2001, Montgomery G.I. Bill, which can offer full tuition plus housing and book
stipends, all of which is transferable to the serviceman's spouse and children. Recruiters say that more young
people are looking to stay in the military for a career and do not see the service merely as a stepping-stone to
education and other jobs. Recruits report that this is due to the private sectors increasing retirement age and
rise in part-time jobs without benefits.

Many young people leave the New England states after high school or college to look for jobs. In some states, lack of
familiarity with the military and even some anti-military attitudes diminish the recruiting pool. 59 To overcome these
obstacles, recruiters use competitive tactics to increase market share, such as social media outreach and celebrity
sponsorship, like with famed snow-boarder Hannah Teter, who promotes the Guard in her native Vermont. While many
recruiters remain optimistic that women provide an underrepresented pool of talent, they point out that if their state
has a command with few or no career tracks open to women, such as armor, they will not be able to increase the
number of women they recruit. In the active duty forces, the Navy has employed a pilot program allowing women a
three-year sabbatical via "on and off ramps" to raise children and come back to military service. 60 Because of the trend
toward dual-income households in the economy, the armed forces are also allowing more "homesteading," in what is
called a "geo-stability package," to accommodate working spouses. Barring a draft scenario, there is little evidence that
women would compensate for a dwindling recruiting pool in the case of a significant decline in American fertility.
Recruitment and retention incentives come at a cost to sustainability. The Hadley-Perry commission concluded that
while the AVF has been an "unqualified success," its recent and dramatic growth in cost makes it unsustainable in the long
term.61 The commission said, "A failure to address the increasing costs of the All-Volunteer Force will likely result in a
reduction in the force structure, a reduction in benefits, or a compromised All-Volunteer Force," and it recommended
changes in retention, promotion, compensation, and professional military education policies—the very things recruiters
attribute to successful manpower levels.62 Some proposed changes are politically sensitive. For example, another study
critiquing the bonus system found that while some ethnic groups respond well to monetary incentives, servicemen from
some groups leave the force despite bonuses. An official policy remunerating on the basis of race is unlikely, no matter the
fiscal benefits.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed various ways to "grow the force small" and cut costs through the personnel
system. These included slashing the number of flag and general officer billets, filling senior officer billets with lower-
ranking officers, cutting senior enlisted billets, and increasing medical care copays of retirees. Some military human
resources experts say this does not go far enough. They propose changing the "up or out" career progression that has
been in place since the Second World War.63 This would entail adjusting the twenty-year retirement eligibility based upon
career specialty, such that a combat pilot could still retire at twenty years, but an administrative specialist would have to
wait until thirty or even forty years.

The defense secretary maintained that "the future of our maritime services will ultimately depend less on the quality of their
hardware than on the quality of their leaders."64 That quality depends on the overall quality of the American workforce from
which the nation will draw its future military leadership. The current leveling off in the number of U.S. high school graduates
indicates that the competition for educated young workers will increase in the years ahead.

Perhaps an even more serious concern is the rise of obesity among Americans. A 2010 study found that between 1959 and
2008, the percentage of military-age men and women who satisfy enlistment standards for weight-to-height ratio and percent
body fat has fallen considerably.65 This is because the percentage of the overweight and overfat has doubled for men and
more than tripled for women in that timeframe.66 While the absolute number of those fit to serve continues to increase due
to a relatively robust fertility rate, the percentage of recruitable youths is dwindling. Since the military will not waive the
physical fitness requirement, the competition for healthy young workers will increase in the decades ahead. If the United
States reinstated the draft, the effects of obesity would be even more severe. And if the fertility rate declines significantly in
the years ahead, it is possible that this added restriction would mean there will not be enough young people to fill essential
military billets. Thus, Americas demographic exceptionalism, together with the AVF, have so far been the military's antidote
to a growing health crisis among American youth.

Why "Declinists" Could be Right: Force Planning Threats to the AVF

The All-Volunteer Force is sustained by the ability to recruit and retain educated, physically fit, and dedicated young
people from diverse backgrounds and equip them with the best technology and training. The question is, are American
civilian and military leaders capitalizing on American demographic excep-tionalism, or has it made them complacent?
Are current plans to cut major systems and recruiting and retention benefits being made strategically, or as a reaction
to political pressure in the midst of a severe economic crisis? The Obama administrations strategic planning documents
do not instill confidence that defense cuts are based upon coordinated strategy, nor that demographic trends are
sufficiently accounted for.

Military analysts often express exasperation with the lack of sincere efforts to link planning, programming, and budgeting to
strategy. Long-range force planning looks only five years into the future; beyond that, the single best statement of future
force needs is the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).67 The QDR and the National Security Strategy (NSS), which the
White House released later even though it is meant to guide defense decisions, do not reflect a tight synchronization so
much as a justification of current plans.

American grand strategy—the coordination of national foreign and military strategies—is missing from the texts. In
particular, the role of sea power and alliances in preventing the rise of peer competitors in Asia and Europe, a core
tenet of American grand strategy, is obscured by emergent but less existential threats and capabilities such as terrorism
and counterinsurgency.68 The QDR calls for a "cooperative" international approach and "tailored" defense posture, both
signaling retreat from American leadership on the world stage. Instead of threat-based planning, the Obama
administrations QDR uses the less precise scenario-based planning. Capabilities-based planning was rejected as too
platform-centric and too costly. The drawback with the QDR's planning construct is that without knowing what military
forces should be capable of doing in the years ahead, it is difficult to discern whether the right budget choices are being
made today. The plan seeks to hedge against such uncertainty by suggesting a "balancing" of long-term and near-term
risks as well as a host of other risks, such as operational, force management, and future operations risks.

The Hadley-Perry commission charged with assessing the QDR called its lack of a clear force-planning construct a "missed
opportunity."69 The commission found that the QDR force structure does not provide sufficient capability in respond
simultaneously to a domestic catastrophe during ongoing contin-I'fiK-y operations abroad. The experts feared that under
the plan, America's number-one interest—protection of the homeland—cannot be met because National Guard
components were neither dedicated to nor funded for home-l.md defense. They expressed concern about the need to
modernize and recapitalize equipment that was worn out ahead of schedule due to heavy use in combat operations. The
long-term cost of not recapitalizing would be even greater than the short-term costs, no matter the temptation to skirt
recapitalization in the rush to achieve cost savings in acquisition and overhead. Additionally, the force size must be
increased to meet other top threats, including anti-access, cyber threats, and post-conflict stabilization. They highlighted a
"significant and growing gap between the force structure of the military—its size and its inventory of equipment—and the
missions it will be called on to perform in the future."70 At the very heart of the force-planning problem, the experts said, is
"a failure of our political leadership to explicitly recognize and clearly define these essential strategic interests."71

For its part, the NSS is imprecise about the long-term security environment. It cites three concerns: violent extremism, rogue
states possessing WMD, and the rise of military power challenger states. Notably, these are all concentrated in Asia and
Eurasia, leading experts to emphasize the need for U.S. maritime presence in the western Pacific to ensure economic and
security interests. More than presence, what is needed is the ability to transit freely, "protect American lives and territory,
ensure the free flow of commerce, maintain stability, and defend our allies in the region." 72 Only a robust force structure,
"rooted in maritime strategy," can secure these vital national interests, the commission concluded.73 Yet this is the very
quality most threatened by current plans to cut defense deeply in order to pay for America's swollen national debt and
burgeoning entitlements obligations.

FISCAL THREATS TO THE AVF: THE ENTITLEMENTS “SQUEEZE”

Down-to-the wire congressional budget battles in the summer of 2011 showed that, along with strategic drift,
Americas military power is threatened by broader economic woes. With days to go before the lack of a budget
deal would haveallegedly threatened default on American debt repayments, both political parties agreed to
massive and arbitrary defense spending cuts as a way to achieve agreement while avoiding tough decisions
about entitlement reform.

Even without such dramatic showdowns, the increasing share of the budget dedicated to mandatory funding for expenses
such as health care and social security, means that discretionary funds like the military budget will inevitably be
constrained.

In the general budget, unfunded liabilities alone are estimated at some $100 trillion. These include mandatory spending for
which there is no dedicated revenue source, such as taxes or health-care premiums. Medicare is estimated at $88
trillion, and Social Security is estimated at $17.5 trillion. Meanwhile, the net worth of Americans is estimated at half that
much. On top of these commitments is an enormous public debt, estimated at $13.7 trillion. The latest healthcare reform
legislation and stimulus legislation is reported to have added an additional trillion dollars to this figure. These liabilities,
which comprise mandatory spending, will no doubt crowd out discretionary spending such as defense in the coming
decades.

Pushing mandatory spending higher will be the rising cost of medical care. Over the past thirty years, American spending
on health care has more than doubled as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) and costs continue to account for a
steadily growing share of GDP. That share will double again by 2035 to 30 percent of GDP, according to Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates published before the U.S. Congress passed its 2010 health-care reform legislation.74
Health-care costs are expected to reach more than 40 percent of GDP by 2060 and almost 50 percent by 2082.75 Since the
enactment of the 2010 health-care legislation, the CBO has estimated that at the current spending levels, the U.S. federal
debt will surpass the historical high of 110 percent GDP by 2025. The CBO warns that this is an "unsupportable" level and
will constrain Americas ability respond to domestic and international problems and which will make the country
vulnerable to a fiscal crisis in the near term.76

While aging is often seen as a primary reason for increases in Medicare and Medicaid spending, an older population is
only part of the reason for cost growth, according to the CBO. The main cause is the degree to which healthcare spending
cost growth exceeds economic growth. 77 Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid, which accounted for 4 percent of
the GDP in 2010, is projected to rise to 9 percent by 2035, and to 19 percent by 2082.78 Experts are still arguing what
impact health-care reform legislation will have. Estimates project that it will add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the
next ten years and $1.5 trillion in the following decade.79

What is certain is that parts of Medicare—including medical visits and prescription drugs—do not have dedicated funding
streams and will therefore compete with national defense for a portion of the general revenue. On the state level, funding
for guard and reserve forces will compete with rising costs of the mandatory expansion of Medicaid coverage included in
the 2010 health reform legislation. States will also have to pay for people formerly uninsured and those who shift from private
insurers.80

An equally serious challenge for the U.S. economy in the next thirty years is the unfunded liabilities associated with Social
Security. According to a recent study, the official estimates regarding the imbalance between what is owed to retiring
workers and what the nation can afford is woefully underestimated.81 What is more, official estimates do not take into
account important demographic factors that will affect worker productivity in the years ahead.

Assessments of demography and power often oversimplify a nation's prospects of worker productivity by looking merely at
the projected number of workers. However, worker quality matters. And while assessments of quality often focus on
education, social and demographic factors matter too. American worker quality will increase in the coming years due to
more capital and better technology per worker, but it will face challenges, such as leveling-off high school graduation rates
and fewer integrated families.82 Immigrant groups with higher fertility also tend to have lower education acquisition
propensity, lower employment, and longer average periods of unemployment according to Jag-deesh Gokhale. He says
this will hurt U.S. worker productivity, balancing out the positive aspects of future worker quality.83

Integrated families—in which the elderly, adult children, and grandchildren live together—promote higher worker
productivity. These families pass on to the younger generation noncognitive learning of important attitudes and skills such
as persistence, focus, and willingness to learn. High divorce rates, people remaining single, and single-headed
households indicate a decrease in integrated families and the prospect of lower worker quality in the future.84 According to
the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), American children are more likely to see their parents' marriage break up than
any other children in the developed world.85 PRB reports: "Eight percent of children living with their mothers encounter
three or more maternal partnerships by the time the children are 15 years old." That percentage is three times as many
as in Sweden, the country in second place, where 2.6 percent of children go through the same experience. "This high
frequency of turnovers and transitions is a distinctive aspect of American families," the report says.86 This, too, threatens
to undermine American worker productivity.

INTRA-DEFENSE THREATS TO THE AVF: THE NEED FOR COST CONTROL

Along with broader American fiscal challenges, defense budget battles could also threaten the future force. Cost growth
for "research and development, test and evaluation" rose an astonishing 40 percent in the first eight years of this
century. At the same time, military acquisition costs rose an equally remarkable 26 percent. 87 What is more, the problem is
metastasizing. Anthony Cordesman has shown how the portion of military programs with more than 25 percent cost
escalation rose from 37 percent to 44 percent. At the same time, the delay in delivering these programs rose on average
from sixteen months to twenty-one months.88

Cost escalation is not only a military planning challenge, it is also a political problem. The Pentagon is perceived by
Congress to underestimate costs, and this has created a lower level of trust between the services and Capitol Hill,
leading to pressure to cut some of the costliest programs. Indeed, after the full weight of the budget crisis came to bear in
2010, the Secretary of Defense told Navy supporters, "At the end of the day, we have to ask whether the nation can
really afford a Navy that relies on 3- to 6-billion-dollar destroyers, billion-dollar submarines, and 11-billion-dollar
carriers."89 In 2010 Secretary Gates announced the services would cancel major programs and curtail others. This
included ending plans for a third engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, and cancellation of the C-17 Globemaster strategic lift
aircraft. The 2010 QDR announced more cuts in major weapons systems whose costs had escalated out of control: the F-
22A Raptor stealth fighter whose costs escalated 177 percent, while the quantity to be procured decreased by 71 percent;
the DDG1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer, for which the Navy showed a $200 million per ship increase over the service's
2008 estimate for the first five ships;90 and the littoral combat ship, which had risen from $220 million to more than $600
million.91

These cuts come at a time when the pace of Navy shipbuilding is already so slow that some experts say it severely
threatens future U.S. security interests. A RAND study concluded that over the past four decades, the rate of growth of
Navy shipbuilding costs has exceeded the rate of inflation, "outstripping the Navy's ability to pay for them."92 The study found
that since the Navy's budget is unlikely to rise due to fiscal constraints, it must find a way to build more on the same budget
or face the fact that its fleet will inevitably shrink. Indeed, a CBO report on Navy shipbuilding for 2011 confirmed that the
U.S. Navy's construction plan is not sufficient to achieve the goal of a 322- or 323-ship fleet. 93 The CBO's estimates of the
Navy's plan are 18 percent higher than Navy projections and 37 percent higher in the final ten years of the twenty-year
plan. Hans Ul-rich Kaeser and Anthony Cordesman conclude that "the costs [of shipbuilding] already are high enough to
make the U.S. Navy the greatest single peacetime threat to the U.S. Navy."94

What is worse, building fewer ships may be more costly to the U.S. taxpayer than building more, due to the increasing
maintenance costs of older ships. Kaeser and Cordesman concluded that "the industrial shipbuilding base is designed to
support a larger fleet than can be afforded today. Maintaining or closing excess supply capacities will incur large costs on
the industrial base that are not figured into the Navy budgets." 95 On the other hand, closing public shipyards has already
cost the nation dearly in terms of future security interests. Since the complex skills required in shipbuilding must be
learned over the course of many years, the United States can no longer reconstitute its public shipbuilding and repair
capability in time to meet an emerging naval threat like the one it faced in the Second World War.96

The defense secretary justified the situation this way: "It is important to remember that, as much as the U.S. battle fleet
has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, the rest of the world's navies have shrunk even more. So, in relative terms, the
U.S. Navy is as strong as it has ever been."97 Critics argue that this is specious, since the real question is which navies the
United States will face in the future, such as China's, which is growing at an unprecedented rate. In fact, the defense
secretary admitted that the "virtual monopoly the U.S. has enjoyed with precision guided weapons is eroding—especially
with long-range, accu rate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles that can potentially strike from over the horizon."98 At the
same time, the secretary submitted a budget cutting R& I) spending by more than 4 percent.

Contrary to what these actions would suggest, the defense budget does not put a significant strain on the overall U.S.
budget. In fact, defense spending as a percentage of GDP is as low as it has been since World War II (when it was
nearly 40 percent). The 2010 defense budget appropriation, at around $726 billion for fiscal year 2011, was just 4.8
percent of GDP. The base 2010 defense budget was $550 billion, including $158 billion for the cost of overseas contin-
gency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan." In comparison to the enormous and rapidly rising costs of
Medicare, Social Security, and health-care costs, the defense budget is economical. 100 While ending the Iraq War will de-
crease national security costs to the GDP, it will do so only by about $ 100 billion a year. Meanwhile, shifting focus and
resources to Afghanistan will likely offset these savings.101

Thus, what will continue to drive the increasing burden on federal spending in the coming years will be the rising cost of civil,
not military, programs.102 The burden of health-care reform and stimulus legislation is likely to grow if more large financial
institutions get into trouble.103 While the American economy has been able to attract investments from abroad for now, it
cannot continue to do so unless and until it credibly reduces entitlements.104

Accomplishing major shifts from national defense spending to pay for civil programs will inevitably require major and lasting
reductions in American strategic commitments abroad. But this is not inevitable. Discretionary spending, especially
military budgets, are caught between rising costs of mandatory spending and entitlements. Tough choices that contain
costs must be made sooner not later.
Conclusion

In his 1987 opus The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, acclaimed historian Paul Kennedy predicted the decline of
America's relative power among great nations due to overreaching in its security commitments. Thus began an intensive
debate among scholars about the denouement of American influence. While it was dampened somewhat by the end of
the Cold War and unpredicted rapid demise of the Soviet Union, pessimism persisted; in 1997, Kennedy again surmised the
United States was in the throes of "imperial overstretch."105 The events of September 11, 2001, prolonged campaigns in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and the economic slowdown have created a second wave of intellectual pessimism.106 Mark Haas argues
that "to pay for the massive fiscal costs associated with its aging population, the United States will in all likelihood have to
scale buck the scope of its international policies," and that "the economic effects of an aging population will likely deny
even the United States the fiscal room necessary to maintain the extent of its current global position, let alone adopt major
new international initiatives."107

It was during the first wave of pessimism that Samuel Huntington called America's critics "declinists" and argued they paid
too much attention to material factors such as relative changes in military and economic indicators and not enough
accounting of the internal factors that would determine the future of American power.108 American demographic
exceptionalism and the adaptability and technical advances of its workforce and its military equivalent, the All-Volunteer
Force, mean the United States has significant manpower advantages over the rest of the world that many scholars miss in
their analyses. American leaders should seize upon the population advantage. While lower-level planning guidance
addresses the operational consequences of shifting demographics, national strategic documents need to be better
informed.109

Ironically, it may be due to their nation’s demographic health that leaders have become complacent, putting off difficult
decisions regarding civilian spending and not anchoring current military force planning decisions to strategy. An
abundance of youth and the financial ability to recruit and retain them during two ground wars has also led to a strategic
drift away from the traditional American grand strategy that emphasizes sea power and balancing against a the rise of a
peer competitor. Without swift attention to its shipbuilding and strategic alliances, America's role as a Pacific power could be
eclipsed in Chinas rise, whether peaceful or turbulent.

The problem then seems to be less about "imperial overstretch," as declinists would argue, and more about strategic indecision
and a lack of cost control. The rising cost of platforms must be contained, but not at the expense of American maritime
superiority, which ensures economic and security interests, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. The rising cost of the All-
Volunteer Force has to be controlled, but in a way that is attuned to changing demographics regionally and
generationally. When the Obama administration announced it would cut retention incentives, critics rightly warned that it
might have negative effects on force quality. National Guard commands, which are vital to homeland security, are affected
by regional demographic disparities that may be exacerbated by a "one size fits all" cut in recruiting and retention
incentives. Competition for American high school graduates will increase due to a leveling off in the number of those with
a high school diploma. The rise in child obesity means that even though the number of recruitable youths is increasing
due to relatively high fertility rates, the portion of youth who are eligible for military service will decrease, especially among
women, who are harder to recruit and retain in the first place. The decline of the traditional American family and extended
family has been linked to a decrease in worker quality in the recruitable population. While the cost of the All-Volunteer
Force is rightly scrutinized, these health and education problems would be even more of a problem if the United States
faces a great power war and must return to the draft.

Fortunately, American demographic prospects offer policymakers a way forward: there is evidence that Americas
demographic exceptionalism will continue. While fertility declined during the Great Depression, it rose during the smaller
recessions since the 1930s, when Americans responded by having more, not fewer, children. The economic stimulus of
World War II and a burgeoning workforce from the postwar baby boom followed. Since the 2008 recession, it appears
that Americans are not appreciably reducing their family sizes, according to preliminary reports.110 This means that the
United States is nowhere near the straits European policymakers find themselves in, a situation that has led to an
unprecedented partnership between Britain and France, which includes sharing aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons
technology. The European situation is a harbinger of impending retreat among America's NATO allies from what will be
unrelenting security threats calling for a military response. Americas share of the burden to keep the peace and secure
the economic sea-lanes will only increase.

To meet the challenge, or at least to avoid the "train wreck" some security analysts are predicting, tough choices about
health-care costs and entitlements haveto be made today. The temptation to solve short-term deficit problems bycutting
costly defense systems without regard to national strategy must be resisted. Force planning decisions must be tied to a
well-defined strategy and along-term budget. America’s demographic health, in the form of an aging population projected
to draw from entitlements longer than any previous generation, will only increase the temptation to make short-sighted
defense cuts in the coming decades. American demographic exceptionalism—in particular its robust fertility rate that gives
it a strong and growing workforce—has ironically allowed Washington to defer these tough choices too long. Policymakers
should seize the demographic advantage to chart the way ahead.

FACING THE WESTERN PACIFIC

The Western Pacific is a region that does not present an immediate crisis for the United States, but this happy state of
affairs will not go on indefinitely. Asia was one of the key trouble spots in the world for a good part of the preceding
century, and the relative tranquility of the past thirty years has been the exception, not the rule. That is why the presidents
task during the next decade will be to prepare carefully and at leisure for the inevitable crises that loom just over the
horizon.
There is a great deal of concern about the Indo-Chinese balance of power, but India and China are divided by a
wall—the Himalayas—that makes sustained conflict and high-volume overland trade virtually impossible. Their interaction
is economic and by sea. The central and long-standing opposition in this region is actually that between China and Japan,
the two nations locked in a tie for the world's second large-si economy. There is substantial economic competition.
Economics affect a balance of power only when geography permits other kinds of competition. All other regional powers—
including South Korea, a substantial economic force in its own right—exist within the framework of the China-Japan-U.S.
balance. It is in terms of maintaining and manipulating that balance that the United States will define its policy during the
next decade.
It is difficult to imagine two nations more different than China and Japan, and economic friction has made them
hostile to each other since their first modern war, in 1895, when Japan defeated China's navy. Japan is a maritime
industrial power, utterly dependent on imports of raw materials for its survival.
China, with its huge population and geography, is wedded to the land. From the moment Japan first began to
industrialize, it has needed Chinese markets, raw material, and labor and has wanted these on the most favorable terms.
The Chinese have needed foreign capital and expertise but have not wanted to fall under Japanese control. This wary
interdependence of two economies led them into a brutal war in the 19305 and 19405, during which Japan occupied a
good deal of the Chinese mainland. The relationship between these two countries never fully recovered from that war, and
hostility and distrust have been kept under control in part by the presence of the United States.
During the Cold War, the United States maintained complex relations with each country. It needed Japan's
industrial power to support the U.S. in the Korean War and beyond, as well as its geography to block the Soviet fleet from
entering the Pacific. Japan willingly gave both. In return, the United States gave the Japanese access to American
markets for its industrial products and did not require Japan to make a military commitment to American ventures around
globe.
During the same era, the United States spent nearly thirty years in marked hostility to Communist China. Then,
when it had dissipated its global power in Vietnam and needed a counterweight to the Soviets, it turned to China. China,
afraid of the Soviet Union and seeing the United States as a guarantor of its own security, accepted the overture.
Neither China nor Japan was comfortable with the U.S relationship with the other, but the United States managed
the triangulation without difficulty, because each country had more important issues to consider. China's concerns were
geopolitical: largely the fear of the Soviet Union.
Japan's were economic: its postwar economic boom. Each country needed the United States for its own
reasons.
When the Cold War ended, the nature of the balance changed. Japan's period of rapid growth stalled out as
China, having adopted Japan's focus on economics, was undergoing a prolonged boom. Japan remained the larger
economy, but China became the most dynamic—a situation that the United States saw as quite satisfactory. Focused
primarily on economic issues, the United States did not look at either country from a genuinely geopolitical point of view.
In general, Asia was a matter for the Treasury Department and for managers of trade relations, not something of concern
to the Department of Defense.
The stability of the western Pacific and southeast Asia since the i 98os is all the more notable when we consider
that from Indochina to Indonesia, China, and elsewhere, Asia appeared to be one of the most unstable and unpromising
regions in the world, a caldron of war, civil war, and general instability throughout the 1960s and '70s.
The president must bear in mind that Asia is an extraordinarily changeable place, and in the next ten years we will
undoubtedly see some things that are now regarded as immutable being utterly transformed. For example, the Chinese
economy will face harsh tests while Japan begins recovering from its failures. The consensus in 1970 was that Asia was
inherently violent and unstable; the consensus today is that it is peaceable and stable. These contradictory assessments
suggest the challenges in determining what Asia will look like over the next decade, how the Sino-Japanese dynamic will
play itself out, and what American policy should be toward the region.

CHINA, JAPAN, AND THE WESTERN PACIFIC. When we talk about east Asia, we are really talking about a string of
islands stretching from the Kuriles to Indonesia, as well as their relations with one another and with the mainland. When
we talk about the mainland, more than anything else we are talking about China.
China stretches twenty-five hundred miles inland and borders on fourteen countries. While China faces an ocean
on only one side, it may be useful to think of it as a fairly narrow island clinging to the edge of the Pacific, isolated to the
north, west, and south by virtually impenetrable barriers.
The image of an island holds up when we consider that the vast majority of Chinas population lives in the eastern
part of the country, within about four hundred miles of the coast. The reason for this concentration is the availability of
water. The area between the line bisecting the map (facing page) and the coast marks the area in which more than fifteen
inches of rain a year falls—the minimum needed to maintain large numbers of people. Since the western part of China is
too arid to maintain a large population, more than a billion people are crammed into a region about the size of the United
States east of the Mississippi, not including New England. This is Han China, the land of the ethnic Chinese.
Western China is a vast and quite empty near-desert surrounded by four non-Chinese buffer states: Tibet,
Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria. These anchor China at its geographical limits, with the Himalayas to the
southwest, minimally passable but certainly not by armies and not by trade in any volume. Siberia lies to the north, a huge
wasteland with no north-south transportation. Jungles and rugged hills lie to the south, stretching from Myanmar to the
Pacific, isolating China from southeast Asia.
Geographically, Japan is a much simpler place, consisting of four main islands and a series of much smaller
islands to the north and south. It is being an archipelago that makes Japan by necessity a maritime nation, a fact
compounded by an extraordinary geological reality: Japan is almost entirely devoid of the minerals needed by industry.
Industrialization has always meant importing resources, including oil, which Japan gets primarily from the Persian Gulf.
This means that Japan, by definition, has widespread global interests and vulnerabilities. Unlike China, which imports raw
materials but has enough supplies of its own to survive if necessary, Japan would collapse in a matter of months if its
imports were disrupted.
Partly because of its isolation and partly because it industrialized rapidly in the nineteenth century, Japan avoided
the experience that China suffered at the hands of Europeans. The Europeans provided Japan wit assistance in the form
of industrial technology and military training. T British organized the Japanese navy, the Germans the army, and thus
Japan evolved rapidly into a power that could challenge Europeans. Indeed, it defeated the Russians in 1905.
The country most alarmed by Japan's sudden emergence was the only other industrialized power in the Pacific:
the United States. Prior to World War II, the Japanese imported raw materials mostly from sou east Asia and the East
Indies. In order to secure access to these supplies Japan needed a substantial military force, particularly a navy. The
United States, which became a significant maritime power only at the end oft nineteenth century, saw Japan's naval
buildup as something that might one day drive the U.S. out of the Pacific. Simply by becoming an industrial and naval
power, Japan appeared to threaten the security of, United States. By expanding its naval force to defend itself against
Japan, the United States threatened the security of Japan.
The result of this mutual intimidation was World War II in the Pacific The United States defeated Japan not just
because of the atom bomb and the success of its island-hopping strategy, but because its submarines cut off the supply
of raw materials from the south and crippled Japan's ability to wage war. Japan continued to resist, but once the U.S.
submarine campaign placed a stranglehold on its supplies, its po:
was hopeless.
Today Japan is just as dependent on maritime trade as it was i I93os and 4os. It still must import all of its oil, and it
must do so through waters controlled by the United States Navy. That means that Japans industrial position depends on
the willingness of the United States to guarantee the sea-lanes. It also depends on the United States' willingness not to
take risks along Japan's line of supply-particularly through Strait of Hormuz.
Thus Japan is trapped in a subordinate relationship with the United States. It cannot afford to alienate the United
States without first building up a military force able to secure its own supply lines, but this is an undertaking far more
ambitious and expensive than Japan wants to attempt during the next ten years. Nonetheless, its inherent insecurity
because of import dependency, along with American unpredictability, will certainly drive Japan to become less dependent
and exposed than it has been.
Like Japan, the Chinese can ill afford to alienate the Americans. They depend on the United States less for the
flow of raw materials (although Chinese ships also pass through waters controlled by the United States) than as a
consumer of Chinese industrial products. China, like Japan before it, has become a huge exporter to the United States, so
much so that the ability and willingness of the United States to buy is one of the foundations of the Chinese economy
along widi the European market. China must have access to both. Over the next ten years, China, like Japan, will be
focused on preparing for what it sees as the worst-case scenario vis-a-vis its American trading partner, a political decision
to limit Chinese access to the American market.
To the extent that the regional balance will continue, it will do so not so much because of Japanese-Chinese
relations but because of the relationship each Asian nation has with the United States. As China and Japan both become
stronger, each will inevitably notice the other's rise and become concerned.
All other things being equal, Japan's relationship with the United States will remain stable, but with China the story
will be different. Exports stabilize China's economy and society, but it is not enough to have buyers; it is also essential that
the sale of exports build Chinese prosperity. If exporting to the United States no longer fits Chinese requirements, then
Chinese interest in the relationship with the United States will shift and China will move away from dependency. Over the
next decade, as China becomes more of an economic free agent, although not always a particularly prosperous one,
Japan will have to have the United States guarantee its interests against China or shift its posture as well. Thus the
balance that rests on the U.S.-Chinese relationship actually depends on how the Chinese economy functions over the
next several years.
CHINA AND JAPAN. Part of the reason China was able to grow so dramatically in the 19805 is that Mao restrained
growth just as dramatically up until that moment. When Mao died and was ultimately replaced by Deng Xiaoping, the mere
shift of ideology freed China for an extraordinary growth spurt based on pent-up demand, combined with the native talents
and capabilities of the Chinese people.
Historically, China has cycled between opposites: either isolation combined with relative poverty or an openness
to trade combined with social instability. From the 18405, when Britain forced China to open its ports, to 1947 and the
Communist takeover, China was open, prosperous in at least some regions, and violently fragmented. When Mao went on
the Long March and raised a peasant army to expel the Westerners, he once again imposed relative isolation and
reduced the standard of living for everyone, but he created a stability and unity that China had not experienced in almost a
century.
This oscillation between openness and instability and enclosure and unity is based in part on the nature of China's
primary economic asset, cheap labor. When outside powers are allowed to invest in China, they build the kinds of
factories and businesses that take advantage of China's abundant human capital. And yet the primary purpose of these
factories is not to sell in China but to produce goods that can be sold in other countries. Accordingly, the primary focus of
investment is near large ports and in areas with good transportation to these harbors. Because the population is
concentrated in the coastal region, there is little reason to build infrastructure deeper within the country. Indeed, the vast
majority of the factories are within a hundred miles of the coast. Even as China prospered and the factories became
Chinese-owned, the pattern continued.
According to the People's Bank of China sixty million Chinese—a population equivalent to that of a large
European country—live in middle-class households (those earning more than $20,000 a year). But with China's population
of 1.3 billion people, 60 million middle-class citizens represent less than 5 percent of the total population, and the
overwhelming majority of those live in the coastal region or in Beijing.
Six hundred million Chinese live in households earning less than $1,000 a year, or less than $3 a day for the
family. Another 440 million Chinese live in households earning between $1,000 and $2,000 a year, or $3 to $6 a day. This
means that 80 percent of China lives in conditions that compare with the poverty of sub-Saharan Africa. Even in the belt
within one hundred miles of the coast, home to the 15 percent of Chinese who are the industrial workers, China is an
extraordinarily poor country. Its narrow zone of prosperity creates a chasm that is social as well as geographic. The region
around the ports profits from trade, and the rest of China does not. The coastal region's interests are in fact much more
closely aligned with those of China's foreign trading partners than with the interests of the rest of the country, or even with
the interests of the central government.
It is along these fault lines that China fragmented in the nineteenth century, and it is here that it may fragment in
the future. Beijing balances between the impoverished majority and the prosperous minority. Supported by foreign
interests, the well-off Chinese in the coastal areas will resist the central government. Attempts to transfer wealth either
weakens the central government or forces it to become dictatorial. The Qing Dynasty weakened after the British incursion.
Mao's solution in die 19405 and "505 was extensive repression, the expulsion of foreigners, and the expropriation and
redistribution of wealth to the impoverished interior.
During periods of relative prosperity and growth, the problem can be managed by the state. Even as inequality
increases, the absolute standard of living for most Chinese rises, and that increase, however minimal, goes a long way
toward keeping people passive. But what happens when the economy weakens and standards of living decline overall?
For those in the middle class and above, this is inconvenient. For the more than one billion Chinese living in abject
poverty, even a small contraction in living standards can be catastrophic. That is where China is heading in the very near
future—toward a relatively small decline of growth, but one that will pyramid economically and socially, generating
resistance to the central government.
Given that China has a producer economy completely out of proportion to its consumer economy, the problem is
inevitable. The iPods and clothing that China manufactures are not sold to its own impoverished masses. And yet China
no longer has a wage advantage over countries like Pakistan and the Philippines. Given a limited pool of semiskilled labor
(as opposed to its limitless supply of untrained peasants), the price of labor has risen. Pressed by competition, China has
reduced prices, which has decreased the profitability of exports. In the face of increasing competition and of sluggish
growth among some of its customers, China's ability to compete will decline, increasing the difficulty of repaying business
loans and thus increasing pressure on the entire financial system.
The stark reality is that China simply can't afford unemployment. Large numbers of peasants have moved to the
cities to get jobs, and if they lose their jobs, they either stay in the cities and cause instability or return to their villages and
increase the level of rural poverty. China can keep its people employed by encouraging banks to lend to enterprises that
should be out of business, by subsidizing exports, or by building state-owned enterprises, but these efforts hollow out the
economic core.
Over the next decade, China will have no choice but to increase its internal security. The People's Liberation
Army is already huge. In the end, the PLA is what will hold the country together, but this assumes that this force, drawn
heavily from the poorest segments of society, will itself hold together and remain loyal. To quell class resentments, China
will have to tax the coastal region and the 60 million well-to-do Chinese, then transfer the money to the PLA and the
peasants. Those being taxed will resist, and the revenues will be insufficient for those the government intends to benefit,
but it should be enough to retain the compliance of the army.
The long-term question, which will be answered in the decade to come, is whether the Chinese will attempt to
solve their problem as Mao did—by closing off the country and destroying the coastal businessmen and expelling foreign
interests—or by following the pattern of regionalism and instability of the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth
centuries. The only certainties are that the Chinese government will be absorbed with internal problems, working carefully
to balance competing forces and increasingly paranoid about the intentions of the Japanese and the Americans.
In 1990, Japan went through the kind of decline that the Chinese are beginning to experience now. Japan has a
much stronger degree of informal social control than most outsiders can see, and at the same time the large corporate
conglomerates, called keiretsu, retained a great deal of latitude. Having grown rapidly after World War II, the Japanese
succumbed to a financial crisis made inevitable by their failure to develop a market system for capital. Their economy
operated through informal cooperation among the keiretsu and the government. This cooperation was designed so that
there would be no losers, and therein lay its fatal flaw.
The capital problem was exacerbated by Japan's not having a retirement plan worth mentioning, which meant that
citizens were forced to save heavily, putting their money in government post office banks, which paid very low interest
rates. The money was then loaned by the government to the large "city banks" linked to the keiretsu. This system gave
Japan a huge advantage in the 19705 and 19805, when U.S. interest rates were in the double digits and Japanese
corporations could borrow at less than ^ percent. But the money was not being loaned to businesses that were inherently
profitable. Most profit was derived from the added margin provided by cheap money. And the need for the Japanese to
save a huge amount in order to retire meant that they were reluctant consumers. Thus the heart of the Japanese
economy, like the Chinese economy today, was in exports, particularly to the United States.
 As competition from other Asian countries increased, the Japanese cut prices, which reduced profits. Lower
profits meant that businesses had to borrow more money in order to grow, then found it increasingly difficult to pay back
their loans. What followed was an economic crash that wasn't noticed by the Western media until several years after it
happened.
Like the Chinese, the Japanese had to avoid unemployment, but for different reasons. In Japan, the reluctance to
downsize was based on the social contract whereby a worker committed himself to one company for life and the company
reciprocated. The Japanese honored the tradition by maintaining near full employment while allowing the growth rate to
slip to almost nothing.
Western economists dubbed the twenty years during which the Japanese economy stagnated the "lost decades,"
but this is a misunderstanding of Japanese objectives, or rather the imposition of a Western point of view on Japanese
values. Sacrificing growth in order to maintain full employment was for this highly cohesive society not to lose a decade
but to retain a core interest.
At the same time, Japan's birthrate dropped well below the 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain its
population. Now, with each generation smaller than the one before, the economy can no longer support retirees. In this
way, debt and demography have created an enormous crisis for Japan.
During the next ten years, the Japanese will no longer be able to maintain full employment by exorbitantly
increasing their debt, both public and private. Like the Chinese, they will have to shift economic models. But the Japanese
have one overwhelming advantage: they do not have a billion people living in poverty. Unlike the Chinese, they can
absorb austerity, should it be required, without inviting instability.
Japan's fundamental weakness remains its lack of natural resources for industry, from oil to rubber to iron ore. To
remain an industrial power, Japan has to buy and sell globally, and if it loses access to the sea-lanes, it loses everything.
If trouble arises and it lacks the option of turning inward, Japan is far more likely to become assertive once again.

THE SINO-JAPANESE BALANCE OF POWER. For the past thirty years or so, relations between China and Japan have
been secondary to each country's relationship with the United States. The United States maintained the regional "balance
by maintaining mutually beneficial relations with each country, but those relations will shift in the decade ahead. First,
China's economic problems will alter its relationship to the world while transforming the country's internal workings.
Similarly, Japan's internal problems and the solutions it chooses will transform the way it operates.
Even when passive and dependent on other countries to guarantee access to world markets, Japan always
remains deeply embedded in the world. China is embedded as well, but not as irrevocably as Japan. The loss of imported
raw materials does not represent an existential threat to China the way it does to Japan. Similarly, while China depends
on exports, it could reconfigure itself if necessary, albeit painfully.
China, then, has less of a temptation to become assertive; it also has less of an ability to do so. China's main
access to the world is by sea, but it does not have a substantial navy relative to geography and the United States. Building
a naval power takes generations, not so much to develop the necessary technology as to pass along the accumulated
experience that creates good admirals. It will be a long time before China can challenge either the United States or even
Japan at sea. There has been a great deal of discussion of the development of China's navy. Certainly, significant
development is under way, but there is a huge gap between the present level of effort and what China has to do to
challenge U.S. naval power even in the waters near China. The most significant developments are in land-based anti-ship
missiles. But the Chinese have a very long way to go before naval vessels can hope to defeat an American fleet. And
even the anti-ship missiles are highly vulnerable to U.S. air and missile strikes. China's navy will not force the United
States out of regional waters in the next decade.
Today Japan is formally a pacifist power, barred by Article 9 of its constitution from having an offensive armed
force, but this has not prevented it from maintaining the most capable navy in the western Pacific, nor from having a
substantial army and air force. It has, however, managed to avoid using those forces, relying instead on the United States
to protect its international interests, particularly its access to natural resources.
Japanese submission to the United States after World War II proved beneficial because the United States needed
Japan's help in the Cold War and wanted Japan to be as strong as possible. Things have now subtly changed. The United
States still controls Japan's sea-lanes and is still prepared to guarantee access, but its willingness to take risks with that
access has put Japan in a potentially dangerous position. So far, during the U.S.-jihadist war, the United States has been
cautious in not endangering the oil route through the Strait of Hormuz that Japan depends on, but it could easily
miscalculate. Simply put, the United States can endure risks that Japan can't afford, so the two countries' perspectives on
the world and their national interests diverge.
The internal problem for the Japanese is that they have gone as far as they can in this economic cycle. They must
either accept austerity and unemployment or allow the economy to begin to overheat. Their great weakness remains
capital markets, which still don't operate freely, and yet the Japanese don't have effective central planning either. This
situation cannot be sustained. Moving to a free market in capital might solve the Japanese problem in the long run, but
only at the cost of instability now.
Because they can't afford a true market economy, they will move toward an economy in which the state imposes
greater efficiencies (never as efficient as a market, but more efficient than what they have now) and in which the keiretsu
decline in importance. This will mean that the Japanese state will concentrate more power in itself and take a greater role
in managing finance.
Japan's other great problem is demographic. It is an aging country that needs more workers but is socially unable
to manage large-scale immigration, which moves counter to the cohesiveness of Japanese culture. The solution is not to
have workers that come to the factories but to have factories that go to the workers. Over the next ten years, Japan will be
even more aggressive in exploiting labor markets outside its own borders, including those in China, depending on the
evolution of events there.
Whatever the future holds, the Japanese will want to continue their core strategic relationship with the United
States, including their reliance on the U.S. to secure their sea-lanes. For Japan, this is both more cost-effective and far
less dangerous than striking out on its own.

THE AMERICAN STRATEGY: PLAYING FOR TIME. The United States does not have the resources or the policy
bandwidth to deal with every regional balance of power at the same time. It will be preoccupied with Russia and the
Middle East, which does not leave it much in the way of resources to deal with the western Pacific. By default, then,
American strategy in this region must be to delay and deflect. The United States cannot really control the vast processes
that are under way, so the best it can hope to do is to shape them a bit. Fortunately, this is one region in which the
processes at play have the countries on a relatively benign path toward the United States, at least for now. Therefore U.S.
policy should be to stall while laying the groundwork for what comes after.
The American danger does not rest in an alliance forged between Japan and China. These two nations compete
with each other in too many ways, and differ from each other too profoundly, for close cooperation. Having reached the
limits of this economic cycle, Japan will no longer be the quietly passive giant it has been for the past twenty years. China,
on the other hand, will be less than the economic juggernaut that it has been. The challenge for the United States will be
to manage its relationship with both players in this western Pacific system, each in its own different phase. At the same
time, the United States must step back from being the center and let these two Asian powers develop more direct
relationships with each other, finding their own point of balance.
Neither China nor Japan will emerge as a regional hegemon in the coming decade. The Chinese economic
miracle will subside, as all economic miracles do, and China will focus on maintaining stability without rapid growth. Japan
will restructure itself internally while beginning to align its foreign policy with its global interests. But it will be Japan that
the United States will have to watch.
As Japan increases its power, it must necessarily increase its maritime strength. It is a fundamental principle of
the United States to oppose the rise of maritime powers, but obviously the United States isn't going to go to war with
Japan over this issue in 2015 or 2020 the way it did in 1941. Still, it will have to develop a strategy to deal with a more
assertive Japan. The first step in the U.S. strategy toward Japan must be to ensure that China doesn't splinter, because
the weaker China becomes, the freer Japan will be to flex its muscles. To the extent possible, the United States should
relieve pressure on China by facilitating its exports to the United States. This is a reversal, of course, and there are
obvious political problems in doing this. The president will have to be very clever in justifying his generosity at a time of
high U.S. unemployment. But anything that constrains Japan, even marginally, is valuable to the United States.
Only a stable China can control foreign investments in its economy, and both stability and control will be
necessary to fend off Japan's designs on Chinese factories and workers. Constraining Japanese expansion will in turn
delay Japan's ability to cope with its problems, and anything that slows down Japan's economic resurgence benefits the
United States, if only to the extent that it buys time.
The second step in U.S. strategy must be to keep relations with the Japanese as cordial as possible. The more
confident Japan is in its access to raw materials, the less it will be motivated to build its own naval force. The Japanese,
always painfully aware of the imbalance of power, have never been as comfortable as they might appear in their
deferential relationship with the United States. At the same time, they have never wanted to confront the enormous
amounts of money and risk needed to create an alternative.
In the long run, a country as economically large and vulnerable as Japan will have to search for a way to secure
its own interests. That doesn't have to be in the next decade, however, and the American strategy must be to prolong
Japan's dependency as long as possible. The longer the Japanese remain dependent on the United States, the more
influence the U.S. has over Japanese policy and the more it can shape that policy. Pushed hard enough, Japan might
choose a new course that returns to the destructive policies of the 19305, when it was a nation both economically statist
and driven by an emphasis on national defense. The United States must be careful not to push.
Two things will make this Asian strategy easier to sell to the American public. The first is that other matters will
preoccupy them. The second is that American moves in the western Pacific will be incremental rather than sudden. The
president will have the advantage of not having to declare a change in policy, and his actions will not have decisive effect,
because the United States is important but not central to either of these Asian powers.
At the same time, the United States must be building relationships for the next phase of history, in which it might
wish to recruit Japan, China, or both to cooperate against threats from Russia or other powers. The appetite for risk within
these two countries is not very great, and the United States must realize that pressing them without inducements probably
won't work.
This is where Korea may play a critical role. It is already the thorn in the side of both parts of the Sino-Japanese
balance, but it is particularly irksome for the Japanese. For historical reasons, Korea despises the Japanese and distrusts
the Chinese. It is not particularly comfortable with the United States, for that matter, but at least geography has made it
dependent on the U.S.
As Japan increases in power and China weakens, the Koreans will need the United States more than ever, and
the United States will rely on Korea to increase U.S. options for dealing with both countries. Fortunately, the U.S.-Korean
relationship already exists, and for that reason extending it would not cause significant concern to either Japan or China.
Korea also has become a significant technological center. China in particular will be hungry for that technology,
and having some control over die rate of transfer would increase U.S. leverage with China. For their part, the Koreans will
need help in dealing with the North Korean nuisance, particularly in handling the financial aspects of reunification when it
inevitably comes. A unified Korea would want special trade opportunities with the United States, and even though Korea
has nowhere else to turn, the American president should make such concessions, because over the next ten years Korea
may well be the most important relationship the United States has in the western Pacific. But reunification is not the core
issue. North Korea, for all its bluster, is a cripple, and its nuclear facilities exist only as long as others permit it. North
Koreas nuclear program has bought it time by deflecting pressure. It cannot stabilize North Korea permanently. South
Korea, in contrast, remains a dynamic power on its own and will remain a dynamic power whatever happens in the north.
The second important relationship the United States will have in the region is with Australia. One of the last
landmasses to fall under European control, it is certainly on the margins of the world geographically, and most of its
population remains confined to a relatively small area of the country's southeast.
Geopolitically, Australia is misunderstood and misunderstands itself. It appears to be isolated and secure, yet its
isolation is an illusion and its vulnerability real. For example, its nearest neighbor is Indonesia, a highly fragmented and
weak country, separated from Australia by hundreds of miles of water. During World War II, Indonesia and its eastern
neighbor, New Guinea, served an important strategic function for Australia, soaking up the Japanese attack and leaving
the Japanese too weak to think about extending themselves farther south. Interestingly, World War II and Australia's
island buffers to the north have reinforced its sense of security, in spite of creating worries about boat people.
Despite the appearance of standing alone and secure, Australia is actually quite dependent on international trade,
particularly the sale of food products and industrial minerals such as iron ore, to sustain its economy. These goods are
shipped by sea, and Australia has no control whatever over the security of its sea-lanes. In a sense, then, Australia is like
a creature whose arteries and veins are located outside its body, unprotected and constantly at risk.
Australia's strategy for dealing with this vulnerability has been to ally itself with the dominant naval power in the
western Pacific—once Britain, now the United States. All alliances bear costs, and the British and Americans wanted the
same quid pro quo: Australia's participation in their wars. Australians sacrificed heavily in the Boer War, both world wars,
and in Korea and Vietnam. Between 1970 and 1990 the Australians pulled back from this role as military partner, but
during this period there were few calls for their participation. In 1990, in Desert Storm, they returned to their strategy of
assisting in military operations, and they then went on to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Along with the security of sea-lanes, Australia's well-being depends on an international trading regime that allows
terms it can manage. Australia's strategy of being of service to its Anglo-American cousins has bought it a seat at the
table alongside the great powers. This has provided influence and security to its trade, something that Australia never
could have achieved on its own.
 During World War II, Australia served Britain by sending troops to North Africa. It served the United States by
acting as a depot for building up U.S. forces for the Pacific theater. Certainly Australian forces fought as well, but if no
forces had been available, Australia's tremendous value was its location, behind the geographic shield of Indonesia and
New Guinea. Should any great power emerge in the western Pacific to challenge the United States, Australia will once
again be the strategic foundation for America's Pacific strategy. The caveat is that building the infrastructure for a rear
depot took several years in World War II, and any future conflict might not allow that kind of lead time.
For the United States, maintaining a relationship with Australia shouldn't be difficult. Australia has only two
strategic options. One is to withdraw from alliance commitments and assume that its interests will be addressed in
passing. The other is to participate in the alliance and have more formal commitments from the United States. The former
is cheaper but riskier. The latter is more expensive but more reliable.
If a major threat developed, Australia would most likely return to the U.S. fold. If a western Pacific power suddenly
gained control of the sea-lanes, however, there is always a chance that Australia would make a deal, if it calculated that
such compliance would achieve its ends with less risk than fighting alongside the Americans. Therefore, having prior
commitments from and installations in Australia serves the American interests best by limiting Australia's options.
Even if Australia is hostage to U.S. protection, its strategic importance is such that the United States should be as
generous and seductive as possible. Being sparing in what it asks of Australian military commitments also makes sense,
because the United States may need Australia more— and more broadly—in the future than it needs Australian troops
now.
Of similar strategic importance for the United States is the city of Singapore, created by the British at the tip of the
Malay Peninsula as a base from which to control the Strait of Malacca. This narrow passageway is still the primary route
between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, particularly for oil headed for China and Japan from the Persian Gulf. U.S.
warships on the way to the Persian Gulf also must pass through this strait. Along with Gibraltar and the Suez Canal, it is
one of the world's great maritime choke points. Whoever controls it can shut off trade at will, or guarantee that it will flow.
Singapore is now an independent city-state, enormously prosperous because of its geographical position and
because of its technology industry. It needs the United States as a customer, but also to protect its sovereignty. When
Malaya was given independence, the primarily ethnic-Chinese Singapore split from the predominantly Muslim Malaysia.
Relations have varied, and there has not been much threat of annexation, but Singapore understands two geopolitical
realities: that the worst thing in the world is to be rich and weak, and that security is never a sure thing. What Malaysia or,
for that matter, Indonesia might want to do in a generation or two can't be predicted.
The United States cannot simply control Singapore; instead it must have cooperative relations with it. As in his
dealings with Korea and Australia, the president should be more generous with Singapore than he needs to be in order to
assure the alliance. The price is small and the stakes are very high.

INDIA. It is in the context of the western Pacific that we should consider India. Despite its size, its growing economy, and
the constant discussion of India as the next China, I simply do not see India as a significant player with deep power in the
coming decade. In many ways, India can be understood as a very large Australia. Both countries are economically
powerful—obviously in different ways—and in that sense they have to be taken quite seriously.
Like Australia, India is a subcontinent isolated geographically, although Australia's isolation, based on thousands
of miles of water, is much more visible. But India is in its own way an island, surrounded by land barriers perhaps less
easily passable than oceans. The Himalayas block access from the north, and hilly jungles from the east. To the south, it
is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, which is dominated by the United States Navy.
The biggest problem for India lies to the west, where there is desert, and Pakistan. That Islamic nation has fought
multiple wars with the predominantly Hindu India, and relations range from extremely cool to hostile. As we saw in my
discussion of Afghanistan, the balance of power _ between Pakistan and India is the major feature of the subcontinent.
Maintaining this balance of power is a significant objective for the United States in the decade to come.
India is called the democratic China, which, to the extent that it is true, exacts a toll in regional power. One of the
great limitations on Indian economic growth, impressive as it has been, is that while India has a national government,
each of its constituent states has its own regulations, and some of these prevent economic development. These states
jealously guard their rights, and the leadership guards its prerogatives. There are many ways in which these regions are
bound together, but the ultimate guarantor is the army.
India maintains a substantial military that has three functions. First, it balances Pakistan. Second, it protects the
northern frontier against a Chinese incursion (which the terrain makes difficult to imagine). Most important, the Indian
military, like the Chinese military, guarantees the internal security of the nation—no minor consideration in a diverse
country with deeply divided regions. There is currently a significant rebellion by Maoists in the east, for instance, just the
sort of thing that it is the army's job to prevent or suppress.
On the seas, the Indians have been interested in developing a navy that could become a major player in the
Indian Ocean, protecting India's sea-lanes and projecting Indian power. But the United States has no interest in seeing
India proceed along these lines. The Indian Ocean is the passageway to the Pacific for Persian Gulf oil, and the United
States will deploy powerful forces there no matter how it reduces its presence on land.
To keep Indian naval development below a threshold that could threaten U.S. interests, the United States will
strive to divert India's defense expenditure toward the army and the tactical air force rather than the navy. The cheapest
way to accomplish this and preempt a potential long-range problem is for the United States to support a stronger
Pakistan, thus keeping India's security planners focused on the land and not the sea.
By the same token, India is interested in undermining the U.S.Pakistani relationship or, at the very least, keeping
the United States in Afghanistan in order to destabilize Pakistan. Failing that, India may reach out to other countries, as it
did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Pakistan does not represent an existential threat to India, even in the unlikely
event of a nuclear exchange. But Pakistan is not going to simply collapse, and therefore will remain the persistent problem
that India's strategic policy will continue to pivot on.
India lags behind China in its economic development, which is why it is not yet facing China's difficulties. The next
decade will see India surging ahead economically, but economic power by itself does not translate into national security.
Nor does it translate into the kind of power that can dominate the Indian Ocean. American interests are not served by
making India feel overly secure. Therefore, U.S.-Indian relations will deteriorate over the next ten years, even as the
United States leaves Afghanistan and even as U.S.-Indian trade continues.
USA, IRAN & the MIDDLE EAST
I. US – IRAN RELATIONS
BRIEF OVERVIEW
The United States and Iran have had a very long relationship. I think one of the things that is frequently missed is how deep that
relationship is. There is a tendency among people who study this history to fixate on two canonical dates: 1979 and 1953. The former
being the Iran hostage crisis, when radicalized students stormed the U.S. embassy and took American diplomatic personnel hostage
for over a year, and the latter being the year in which the CIA-backed coup against the popular and constitutionally elected Prime
Minister Mossadegh. I think that’s a shame because there’s a much longer and richer history that precedes 1953 or 1979.
There is a long history of mutual fascination and admiration dating back to the 18th century, when colonial Americans had a sort of
romanticized image of Persia, and dating into the late 19th century, when generations of Iranian reformists were fascinated by and
inspired by American democracy and constitutionalism.
Probably the highest point in the relations between the two countries came in the first 20 years of the 20th century, when you had a
very popular treasurer general by the name of Morgan Shuster, who was sent over in 1911 to reorganize Iran’s finances and became a
sort of hero to the Iranian constitutional movement. As well as in 1919, when the Wilson administration quite forcefully and
vocally opposed British attempts to turn Iran into a de facto protectorate . There were pro-American riots in the streets of Iran in
1919. That’s only 100 years ago. That was the world that was lost after 1953, and I think too much of a fixation on recent events and
times obscures that fact that this has been a long and very positive relationship in many ways.
US – IRAN RELATIONS TIMELINE
1. 1921- Reza Khan names himself shah of Persia

Reza Khan, a military officer in Persia’s Cossack Brigade, names himself shah of Persia after staging a coup, backed by the British,
against the government of the Qajar Dynasty. He begins to implement a series of reforms aimed at modernizing the country, which
include building a national railroad system and implementing a secular education system. At the same time, he censors the
press, suppresses trade unions and bans political parties. Later in his rule, he bans the hijab and encourages western dress.
2. 1925- Ahmad Shah is deposed

Already living in exile, Ahmad Shah, the Qajar dynasty’s final ruler, is deposed, and an assembly votes in Reza Khan (who had
adopted the last name Pahlavi) as the new shah.

3.
1935 – Downfall of Ahmad Shah
Ahmad Shah was formally crowned on 21 July 1914, upon reaching his majority. He attempted to fix the
damage done by his father by appointing the best ministers he could find. He was, however, an ineffective ruler
who was faced with internal unrest and foreign intrusions, particularly by the British Empire and Russian
Empire. Russian and British troops fought against the Ottoman Empire forces in Persia during World War I.
In 1917, Britain used Persia as the springboard for an attack into Russia in an unsuccessful attempt to
reverse the Russian Revolution of 1917. The newly born Soviet Union responded by annexing portions of
northern Persia as buffer states much like its Tsarist predecessor. Marching on Tehran, the Soviets extracted ever
more humiliating concessions from the Persian government – whose ministers Ahmad Shah was often unable to
control. The weakness of the government in the face of such aggression by an atheist foreign power sparked
seething anger among many traditional Persians.
By 1920,the government had virtually lost all power outside the capital and Ahmad Shah had lost control
of the situation. The Anglo-Persian Agreement, along with new political parties, further immobilized the
country. The Moderates and Democrats often clashed, particularly when it came to minority rights and
secularism. The debates between the two political parties led to violence and even assassinations.
The weak economic state of Persia put Ahmad Shah and his government at the mercy of foreign
influence; they had to obtain loans from the Imperial Bank of Persia. Furthermore, under the Anglo-Persian
Agreement, Persia received only a small fraction of the income generated by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.
On the other hand, the Red Army along with rebels and warlords ruled much of the countryside.

Persia is officially renamed Iran

Reza Khan asks other nations to call Persia “Iran” in formal diplomatic correspondence. Also, by the mid-’30s, Reza Khan’s
dictatorial approach begins to cause dissent.
4. 1941 – Reza Khan is forced out

Although Reza Khan declares Iran a neutral power during World War II, Iran’s British-controlled oil interests are largely maintained
by German engineers and technicians, and Khan refuses to expel German citizens despite a request by Britain. In September 1941,
following British and Soviet occupation of western Iran, Reza Shah is forced out of power. His son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi,
succeeds him on the throne.
5. 1949 – The shah’s powers are expanded

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi survives an assassination attempt. Afterward, he calls for the convening of a Constituent Assembly.
The group amends the nation’s constitution to give the shah the power to dissolve the parliament.
6. 1951 – Nationalizing the oil industry
Lawmaker Mohammed Mosaddegh, who has gained considerable political power, pushes through a measure that nationalizes the
British-owned oil industry in Iran. The same year, the nation’s legislative body overwhelmingly nominates Mossadegh as prime
minister, forcing the shah to appoint him to the post.
7. 1953 - Mosaddegh overthrown

The power
The Oil Cartel of the Past struggle
In 1951, Iran nationalized its oil industry previously controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP), and between
Iranian oil was subjected to an international embargo. In an effort to bring Iranian oil production back to Mosaddegh
international markets, the U.S. State Department suggested the creation of a consortium of major oil and the
companies. The "Consortium for Iran" was subsequently formed by the following companies: shah comes
1. Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (United Kingdom) – This company became British Petroleum. to a head
when the
2. Gulf Oil (United States) shah
attempts to
3. Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands/United Kingdom) dismiss
Mosaddegh
4. Standard Oil Co. of California (SoCal) (United States) – Became Chevron in 1984. from his
5. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey (Esso) (United States) – Became Exxon, which renamed itself position – a
ExxonMobil. move urged
by the U.S.
6. Standard Oil Co. of New York (Socony) (United States) – Became Mobil, which was acquired by Central
Exxon in 1999 to form ExxonMobil. Intelligence
Agency. Pr
7. Texaco (United States) otesters
take to the
Preceding the 1973 oil crisis, the Seven Sisters controlled around 85 per cent of the world's petroleum reserves. streets, for
Since then, industry dominance has shifted to the OPEC cartel and state-owned oil and gas companies in cing the
emerging-market economies, such as shah to flee
1. Saudi Aramco, the
country.
2. Gazprom (Russia);
But the
3. China National Petroleum Corporation; shah returns
to Iran
4. National Iranian Oil Company; when Gen.
Fazlollah
5. PDVSA (Venezuela); Zahedi —
with
6. Petrobras (Brazil), and
backing
7. Petronas (Malaysia). from the
CIA —
In 2007, the Financial Times called these "the new Seven Sisters". overthrows
Mosaddegh
in an
August
coup d’etat.
8. 19
57
–

The creation of Iran’s intelligence organization

U.S. and Israeli intelligence officers work with Iran to set up SAVAK, an Iranian intelligence organization. The organization is later
blamed for the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners and violent suppression of dissent, according to Amnesty
International.
9. 1963 – The White Revolution

The shah implements the “White Revolution,” an aggressive campaign of social and economic Westernization that included
redistribution of land, increased rights for women and attempts to  improve literacy and health in rural areas. The changes are
met with opposition from the clerical rules and landlords. Popular nationalist Ayatollah Khomeini is arrested in one of many
crackdowns on the shah’s opponents.
10. September 8, 1978 – Black Friday

A day earlier, the shah had imposes martial law in an attempt to quell ongoing protests against his authoritarian rule. On September 8,
thousands
gather in Ayatollah Khomeini: Background
Jaleh Square Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, first came to political prominence
in Tehran, in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his program of reforms known as the "White Revolution",
and security which aimed to break up landholdings owned by some Shi’a clergy, allow women to vote and religious
forces fire on minorities to hold office, and finally grant women legal equality in marital issues. Khomeini declared that the
the Shah had "embarked on the destruction of Islam in Iran" and publicly denounced the Shah as a
protesters. "wretched miserable man."
The death toll
is unknown.
Estimates
range from
several
dozens to hundreds killed.
11. January 16, 1979 – The shah flees

Protests continue and the shah, who was seen by many as a puppet of the U.S. and the UK, is forced to flee Iran amid the intensifying
unrest. He travels to a number of countries before entering the U.S. to receive cancer treatment.
12. February 1, 1979 – Ayatollah Khomeini returns from exile

Islamic nationalist Ayatollah Khomeini returns from France, where he was exiled for more than 14 years because of his opposition to
the shah’s regime. He encourages the brewing revolution.
13. April 1, 1979 – Iran becomes a theocratic republic

Under Ayatollah Khomeini’s guidance, Iran declares itself a theocratic republic guided by Islamic principles, and a referendum is held
to name it the Islamic Republic of Iran.
14. May 5, 1979 – The Revolutionary Guard Corps is formed

Ayatollah Khomeini issues a decree calling for the formation of a force that would apprehend people involved in
counterrevolutionary activities, defend Iran against foreign forces and support revolutionary movements around the world. In the
1980s, one of the now-eight branches of the IRCG– the Quds Force– is created. The group of elite military forces specializes in
foreign operations.
15. November 4, 1979 – Storming of the embassy

Islamic students who were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini storm the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking hostage 52 American
employees and demand that the shah return from receiving medical treatment in the United States to face trial in Iran. The hostage
situation ignites a crisis between the United States and Iran.
16. April 1980 – The hostage crisis

Iran and the United States sever diplomatic ties over the hostage crisis.
17. July 1980 – The shah dies

After traveling from the U.S. to Panama and then to Egypt, the shah dies in exile.
18. September 1980 – The Iran-Iraq War

Iraq invades Iran after years of disagreements over territory, notably oil-rich border regions and the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
19. 1981 – U.S. hostages are released

Following negotiations mediated by Algeria, the U.S. hostages were released after 444 days of captivity, just minutes after Ronald
Reagan is sworn in as president.
20. 1985
–
Origins of the Iran-Iraq War
The roots of the war lay in a number of territorial and political disputes between Iraq and Iran. Iraq wanted to
seize control of the rich oil-producing Iranian border region of Khūzestān, a territory inhabited largely by
ethnic Arabs over which Iraq sought to extend some form of suzerainty. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein wanted
to reassert his country’s sovereignty over both banks of the Shaṭṭ al-ʿArab, a river formed by the confluence of
the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that was historically the border between the two countries.
Saddam was also concerned over attempts by Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government to incite rebellion
among Iraq’s Shiʿi majority. By attacking when it did, Iraq took advantage of the apparent disorder and
isolation of Iran’s new government—then at loggerheads with the United States over the seizure of the U.S.
embassy in Tehrān by Iranian militants—and of the demoralization and dissolution of Iran’s regular armed
forces.

Hezbollah is formed

Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based political party and militant group, issues its founding manifesto. The group, which opposes Israel and
Western involvement in the Middle East, receives substantial financial support and training from Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps. It is largely seen as a proxy for Iran, and the U.S. has designated it a terrorist organization.
21. 1985 – 1987 – Iran-Contra

The United States covertly seeks to sell arms to Iran. The money from the sales was supposed to be in exchange for seven
American hostages being held by Iranian-backed militants in Lebanon, but some of the money is used to fund militia groups
known as the Contras, which were trying to overthrow the socialist regime in Nicaragua. The revelation of the administration’s
plan, which went against a Congressionally approved law banning federal money from being given to the Contras, becomes the
biggest scandal of the Reagan presidency. The scandal becomes known as the Iran-Contra affair.
22. July 1988 – U.S. shoots down Iranian airplane

An American navy ship, the USS Vincennes,  shoots down an Iranian civilian plane in the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 passengers
and crew. The U.S. later apologizes and agrees to financial compensation for the victims families, saying the civilian plane was
mistaken for an attacking military jet.
23. July 1988 – Iran-Iraq War ceasefire
Iran accepts United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, leading to a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War.

24. Iranian Airline 655 vs Pan Am Flight 103

June Airline 655 & Iran-Iraq Ceasefire Connection
Pan Am Flight
later, a103 was a regularly scheduled Pan Am transatlantic flightmust
fromshare
Frankfurt to Detroit via London
A month Department of Defense investigation concluded “Iran the responsibility for the
and New York City. On 21 December 1988, N739PA, the aircraft operating the transatlantic leg of the route was
tragedy” for allowing a civilian aircraft to fly near ongoing hostilities, and that it was “not the result of any
destroyed byculpable
a bomb, conduct
killing all
by243
anypassengers
U.S. Navaland 16 crewassociated
in what became known as the Lockerbie bombing.
negligent or personnel with the incident.”
Large sections of the aircraft crashed onto a residential street in Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 11 people on the
But in December of that year, a United Nations agency International Civil Aviation Organization, came to a
ground.
differentWith a total of
It 270 people
thekilled, it is the none
deadliest
of itsterrorist
ships inattack in the
hadhistory of the United Kingdom.
conclusion. faulted U.S. because the area the equipment necessary to
Following a three-year joint investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and the US Federal Bureau
listen in on civilian air traffic control frequencies, which would have identified the passenger jet.
of
In Investigation (FBI), arrest warrantsStates
were inissued for two LibyanCourt nationals in November 1991. In 1999, Libyan
May 1989, Iran sued the United the International of Justice for compensation for the
leader Muammar Gaddafi handed over the two men for trial at Camp Zeist, Netherlands, after protracted
victims and the destruction of the plane. The two governments reached a settlement in 1996; the U.S. did not
negotiations andbut
UN“expressed
sanctions. Indeep2001, Abdelbaset al-loss
Megrahi , a Libyan intelligence
to pay officer, was jailed for life
accept liability regret over the of lives” and agreed $61.8 million to the
after being found guilty of 270 counts of murder in connection with the bombing.
victims’ families.
In 2003, Gaddafi accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie
with Iraq’sbombing
increasedandusepaid compensation to the families of
The shooting down of Flight 655 also coincided of chemical weapons in its war with
the victims, although he maintained that he had never given the order for the attack. Acceptance of responsibility
Iran, prompting Iran to agree to a ceasefire two months later.
was partday,
of amany
serieshard-liners
of requirements
in the laid out government
by a UN resolution
believein theorder for sanctions against Libya to be lifted.
To this Iranian incident was intentional.
Libya said it had to accept responsibility due to Megrahi's status as a government employee.
To better understand the difference of the two tragedies watch the YouTube video titled: IR 655: 22 years
later, US will not apologize.

1989 – Ayatollah Khomeini dies

Khomeini, believed to be 89 years old, dies after having surgery for digestive system bleeding. After his death, an elected body of
senior clerics — the Assembly of Experts — chooses the outgoing president of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, to succeed
Khomeini as the national religious leader.
25. August 1989 – Hashemi Rafsanjani becomes president

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, is elected president. Rafsanjani was an influential member of the
Council of Islamic Revolution of Iran in the Islamic Republic’s early days.
26. 1995 – U.S. imposes broader sanctions

The Clinton administration expands sanctions that were put in place on Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, placing  a complete oil and trade
embargo on Iran. The U.S. accuses Iran of sponsoring terrorism, committing human rights abuses and seeking to sabotage the Arab-
Israeli peace process.
27. 1997 - Khatami elected president and Soleimani heads the Quds

Mohammad Khatami, who ran on pledges of political, social and economic reform, is elected as Iran’s president. Gen. Qassem
Soleimani also becomes the head of the Quds Force.
28. 2002 – “Axis of evil”

In his January State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush refers to Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” saying the
country is actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The speech is met with anger in Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal
Kharrazi responds by calling President Bush’s comments “arrogant” and saying Iran sees them as “interference in its internal
affairs.”
29. 2003 – Iran admits to plutonium production

The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran admits to plutonium production, but the agency says there is no evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran agrees to more rigorous U.N. inspections of nuclear facilities.
30. 2005 – Ahmadinejad becomes president of Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline Islamic mayor of Tehran, who campaigned as a champion of the poor and pledged to return to
the values of the revolution of 1979, defeats one of Iran’s elder statesmen in presidential elections.
31. 2006 – Ahmadinejad reaches out to Bush

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends a letter to President Bush calling for ways to ease tensions over Iran’s nuclear
program, but continues to defy U.N. deadlines to halt uranium enrichment activities. Ahmadinejad insists the nuclear program is for
civilian energy purposes only.
32. 2007 – Ahmadinejad visits the U.S.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the United States and accuses Israel of occupation and racism during a speech to the
U.N. General Assembly.
The United Nations announces new economic sanctions against Iran, targeted to impact the country’s military and halt Tehran’s
disputed nuclear program.
A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate report finds that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons in 2003, but continues to enrich
uranium and could still develop atomic arms in the future.
33. 2008 – IAEA calls Iran’s uranium enrichment a ‘serious concern’

The International Atomic Energy Agency releases a report saying Iran’s suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons
remained “a matter of serious concern.” European Union nations agree to impose new sanctions against Iran.
 34. 2009 – Obama administration agrees to talks with Iran

The Obama administration announced it would participate in talks with Iran and the United nation’s five permanent members,
breaking from the Bush administration. The talks eventually led to the Iran nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action.
35. June – July, 2010 – U.S. and allies impose new sanctions

The U.N., U.S. and the European Union place further sanctions on Iran for its uranium enrichment activity.
36. June 15, 2013 – Rouhani is elected

Hassan Rouhani, who was described as a moderate, is elected president of Iran.

37. September 27, 2013 – Obama calls Rouhani

President Barack Obama called Iranian President Rouhani, which was the highest level of contact between the U.S. and Iran since
1979. The two discussed Iran’s nuclear program on the call.
38. January 2014 – Beginnings of a nuclear deal reached

Iran and the five U.N. permanent member nations reach an initial agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear program. In the coming months
the first steps of that deal were implemented and negotiations for a more comprehensive plan continued.
39. March 2015 – Civil war breaks out in Yemen

Civil war breaks out in Yemen when a Saudi-led coalition launches airstrikes against Houthi rebels who have taken control of the
capital city of Sana’a. The Houthis are supported by Iran, and Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally in the Middle East, supports the
Yemeni government. The U.S. sells weapons to Saudi Arabia, which are then used in the armed conflict. Five years later, the U.S.
will try and fail to kill a senior Iranian military commander in Yemen the same day it successfully killed an Iranian general in Iraq.
40. July 14, 2015- U.S., Iran and other nations announce nuclear deal

Iran, the U.S. and the four other U.N. permanent members announce they have reached a comprehensive deal regarding Iran’s
nuclear program. Iran agrees to limit its uranium enrichment and allow international inspectors into the country in exchange for the
lifting of sanctions.
41. July 16, 2016 – Lifting of sanctions

The U.S. and Europe lifted sanctions on Iran as promised in the nuclear deal. The very next day, the Obama administration issued new
sanctions against 11 people and companies with links to Iran’s ballistic missile program.
42. 2017 – Trump extends sanctions waivers

The Trump administration renewed sanctions waivers that were part of the Iran nuclear deal.
43. May 8, 2018 – U.S. withdraws from the Iran nuclear deal

President Donald Trump announces the U.S. will withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and implements a “maximum-
pressure campaign” in an attempt to force Iran to negotiate a new deal. In response, Iran says it will exceed the caps for uranium
enrichment as outlined in the Iran nuclear deal. International nuclear watchdogs later confirm Iran has exceeded the limits.
44. April 8, 2019- Trump designates the IRGC a terrorist organization

The Trump administration announces it will designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization. It is the first time the U.S. declares part of another nation’s government as a terrorist organization.
45. May – October 2019 – U.S.-Iran tension ramp up amid attacks on oil tankers

A series of attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz spark increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. blames
Iran for attacks on oil tankers that were sailing under the Saudi Arabian, Japanese, Panamanian and British flags. In response, the
U.S. attempts to seize an Iranian oil tanker.
46. November 2019 – Iranians riot over economic concerns

Over the course of four days, Iranians riot in the streets in opposition to an increase in oil prices. Amnesty International estimates
more than 300 people were killed in the government’s crackdown on the demonstrations. The Trump administration sharply
criticizes the Iranian government for how it handles the protests.
47. December 31, 2019 – Militia members attack U.S. embassy in Baghdad

Iraqi demonstrators and Iran – backed militia members break into the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and set fires in response to the
American airstrike that killed members of an Iran-backed militia the previous weekend.
48. January 3, 2020 – U.S. kills Gen. Soleimani

U.S. kills Iran’s top general QassemSoleimani as well as Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a drone strike at a Baghdad
airport.
49. January 8, 2020 – Iran strikes bases in Iraq housing U.S. soldiers

Iran launches missiles on two bases in Iraq where U.S. soldiers are stationed in retaliation for Soleimani’s killing; no casualties are
reported. The same morning, a Ukrainian airliner crashes after taking off from Iran. A U.S. official says Iran shot down the
plane with two Russian surface-to-air missiles.
50. January 9, 2020 – U.S. retaliates with sanctions

Trump announces his administration will impose new sanctions on Iran in response to the missile strike. The next day,
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin outline the details of the sanctions, which target the
construction, manufacturing, mining, and textiles industries. The sanctions also name eight Iranian officials.
51. January 11, 2020 – Iran admits it shot down a civilian plane
Iran admits it shot down the Ukrainian airliner by mistake. The admissions sparks protests in Tehran and elsewhere against Iranian
leaders.

II. US-Saudi
Relations Iranian Airline 655 vs Ukraine Airlines Flight 752
BRIEF Canadians have been questioning who is at fault for the downing last Wednesday of a plane carrying
passengers from Canada, Iran and other nations.
Over the weekend, Iran admitted accidentally shooting down the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752,
killing all 176 on board.
But some prominent figures in Canadian business and media have pinned part of the blame on the United States.
They say the U.S. provoked Iran by killing a top Iranian commander, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Michael McCain, the billionaire CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, tweeted late Sunday that he was "very angry." Were
the passengers "collateral damage of this irresponsible, dangerous, ill-conceived behavior?" he asked.
Charles Adler, a popular Canadian conservative talk-radio host, would not let Tehran or Washington off the
hook.
"Iran's recklessness comes in response to the United States-ordered killing of Iran's architect of terror, the
head of their special Quds Force, Gen. Soleimani," Adler said in a recent show. "I'll go to my grave believing
those innocents who died aboard Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752 would not have died had it not been for
Trump's decision to kill the general."
Speaking to CBC, Scott Gilmore said, "I did see a direct line between the impeachment and the president
afterwards being outraged at how unfairly treated he saw himself and continually trying to change the
topic to the economy or to the strength of the U.S. military." It was a change of topic, Gilmore said, that led
to the U.S. killing of Soleimani and resulted in Iran downing Flight 752.
But many in Canada's political and military establishment see the events differently.
"This is a failure of Iranian military planning," says retired Maj. Gen. David Fraser, who led Canadian
combat operations during the war in Afghanistan. Iranian military leaders "knew they were going to strike into
Iraq, they were going to put their air defense systems on high alert, and they didn't coordinate with the civilian
authorities. So that's just a failure of the Iranian command control structure to manage their airspace," he says.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/13/796052702/some-canadians-are-angry-at-the-u-s-over-irans-downing-of-flight-
752

OVERVIEW
Saudi Arabia and the United States have a relationship that stretches back almost a century, since the 1933 kickoff of oil
exploration in the kingdom.
Since then, the two countries have maintained a baseline of economic and security cooperation that has kept ties between them strong.
Saudi Arabia is the US' largest foreign military sales customer, and the US has long had a physical and advisory military role in the
kingdom.
While today there seems to be a strategic alignment between Saudi Arabia's interests in the region and those of the US, mostly
centering around controlling Iran's regional reach, there have been low points in this relationship that were brought about by
major events. Saudi Arabia has always sought balance between its role as a leader in the Arab world and its strong ties to the US.
During the final years of the Obama administration, "relations had undergone a period of difference of opinion", as stated by a senior
advisor to Prince Salman last March. These differences of opinion were largely centered around Saudi Arabia's refusal to engage with
Iran and the Obama administration's cautions to the kingdom about the civilian toll of the war in Yemen.
However, under the Trump administration, relations have warmed and the US is fully supporting Saudi Arabia in its regional role.
President Trump had maintained an extremely negative view of Saudi Arabia for years before being sworn in as president,
saying that he was "definitely not a big fan" of the kingdom, and that the US should not be working to "support Saudi terrorists".
This position changed, underlined by an extremely cordial visit that that Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense of Saudi
Arabia Prince Mohammed bin Salman made to Washington, DC.
In a statement after this meeting, bin Salman's senior advisor's statement touched on the various topics discussed, which included an
expansion of economic cooperation, an agreement that Trump's travel ban was justified and was not a "Muslim ban", and the two
leaders' agreement on "the same views on the gravity of the Iranian expansionist moves in the region".
US-Saudi Relations Timeline
1. 1933 - EXPLORING FOR OIL

Standard Oil of California is granted a concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia. Its subsidiary that began the exploration,
California Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC), later came to be known as the Arab American Company (ARAMCO).
CASOC strikes oil in 1938.
Abdullah Sulaiyman, Saudi finance minister, and Lloyd N. Hamilton, lawyer and negotiator for Socal, sign the historic oil concession
agreement on May 29, 1933, in Khuzam Palace, Jeddah.
2. 1940 - ESTABLISHING FORMAL RELATIONS

The US and Saudi Arabia establish full diplomatic relations with official acceptance of the first American envoy to Saudi Arabia. The
US Embassy opened its doors in Jeddah for the first time in 1944, with Saudi Arabia's first ambassador to the US taking up his
duties in 1945.
3. 1945 - LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR DECADES-LONG PARTNERSHIP

King Abdulaziz meets US President Franklin D Roosevelt on board the USS Murphy in the Suez Canal to cement ties between the two
countries. Two core themes that emerged from this meeting helped shape the decades-long partnership: security and oil. By this
date, the US has already requested access to build a military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
4. 1950 - ARAMCO AGREEMENT

Saudi Arabia and ARAMCO agree to a 50/50 profit sharing split in oil sales.
5. 1951 - MUTUAL DEFENSE ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

The Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement is signed, providing the basis for US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and for a permanent US
military training mission in Saudi Arabia. The construction of military installations in the kingdom begins.
6. 1957 - DHAHRAN AIR FIELD FOR MILITARY TRAINING

A formal agreement outlining US military training support to Saudi Arabia is signed. King Saud agrees to renew the agreement for the
US base in Dhahran.
7. 1973 OPEC OIL CRISIS

King Faisal decides that Saudi Arabia will take part in the oil embargo that OPEC imposed to support the Arab position in the
October War.
8.
1974 -
OCTOBER WAR: BACKGROUND
OIL
On October 6, 1973, hoping to win back territory lost to Israel during the third Arab-Israeli war, in 1967,
Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a coordinated attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in
the Jewish calendar. Taking the Israeli Defense Forces by surprise, Egyptian troops swept deep into the Sinai
Peninsula, while Syria struggled to throw occupying Israeli troops out of the Golan Heights. Israel
counterattacked and recaptured the Golan Heights. A cease-fire went into effect on October 25, 1973.

EMBARGO LIFTED

Oil embargo lifted as Israel signed the First Egyptian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement with Egypt and negotiations with Syria
were underway.
9. 1975
-
First Egyptian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement
This agreement establishes a zone of separation and calls for the disengagement of forces. This agreement
was also known as the Sinai Separation of Forces Agreement (later known as Sinai I). Under its terms, Israel
withdrew its forces from the areas west of the Suez Canal held since the October 1973 ceasefire and also
pulled back several miles on the Sinai front east of the canal, where three roughly parallel security zones were
created, each about six miles wide, for Egyptian, UN, and Israeli buffer zones. The UN Zone was occupied
by the Second United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) created by UN Security Council Resolution 340.

ARMS AGREEMENT

Saudi Arabia and the US sign $2bn worth of military contracts.

10. 1979-88 SAUDI – AFGHAN FOREIGN POLICY

Saudi Arabia, along with the US and Pakistan, supported Afghans in their resistance to the Soviet occupation of their country.
The three countries cooperated on intelligence and on an effort to arm and supply the Afghan fighters. Saudi national, Osama Bin
Laden, moves to join the fighters in 1979 and begins supporting them financially and logistically one year later. In 1988 Bin Laden
founded al-Qaeda.
11. 1988 - REPLACING ARAMCO

King Fahd issues a royal decree announcing the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) to replace Aramco. Saudi Arabia
had been gradually buying out the company's assets in an effort to control this jewel in the crown of Saudi oil production.
12. 1990 - OPERATION DESERT SHIELD

Iraq invades Kuwait. Saudi Arabia declares war on Iraq and the US deploys approximately 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia in
Operation Desert Shield under the pretext of protecting Saudi Arabia from possible Iraqi invasion. Bin Laden expresses his
outrage at the presence of foreign troops so close to Islam's holiest places.
13. 1991 - THE TROOPS STAYED

After Operation Desert Shield ended, US military presence was reduced from approximately 500,000 troops to 5,000, reflecting a US
commitment to protecting Saudi Arabia and US interests in the region.
14. 1993-2001 BILL CLINTON BECOMES US PRESIDENT

Bill Clinton becomes US president in a post-Cold War world and seems to be focusing his foreign policy energy on trying to resolve
the Palestine-Israel conflict. Attention is soon diverted back to the threat of al-Qaeda and similar groups as bin Laden's rhetoric is
heightened and attacks in New York and Mogadishu claim American nationals.
15. 1994 - OSAMA BIN LADEN EXPELLED

A little more than two years after Osama bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia, he is stripped of his citizenship. Bin Laden
moved first to Sudan, which expelled him in 1996, and then to Afghanistan.
16. 1996 - DECLARATION OF WAR

Bin Laden declares his formal "holy war" against the United States. This announcement is made from his base in Afghanistan.
17. 2001 SAUDI-US RELATIONS TURN SOUR
The September 11 attacks turn public opinion in the US against Saudi Arabia when it is announced that 15 out of the 19 attackers were
Saudi nationals. It was later revealed that a number of Saudi individuals had been financing al-Qaeda. The Bush administration
recognizes that Bin Laden poses an equal threat to Saudi Arabia and security cooperation between the two countries
continues.
18. 2009-2017 BARACK OBAMA SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT

Obama served two terms that witnessed increased tension between the US and Saudi Arabia. The tension centered around US
negotiations with Iran, which were not viewed positively by Saudi Arabia, and later differences in opinion over perceived US
inaction in Syria after the popular uprising against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad.
19. 2011 - OSAMA BIN LADEN ELIMINATED

Osama bin Laden is killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by US special forces. Saudi Arabia's official reaction was one of "hope ... that
the elimination of the leader of the terrorist al-Qaeda organization would be a step toward supporting international efforts aimed at
fighting terrorism".
20. 2012 - US-IRAN TALKS

The initial meetings between US and Iranian officials to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme are held in secret in Oman. Saudi
Arabia was not informed at first, and when the news was made public, the Saudi government issued a cautiously worded statement
expressing hope that the agreement would improve the situation in the region, "provided there is goodwill". However, the Saudi
ambassador to London, Prince Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdulaziz, called the deal "appeasement" and his senior advisor, Nawaf
Obaid, told a think-tank meeting that the Saudi government had known about the secret meetings in Muscat, and that there was
anger over how the matter was handled, "We were lied to, things were hidden from us ... The problem is not with the deal struck in
Geneva, but how it was done."
21. 2014 - OIL MARKET CRASH

The US starts shale oil production, causing Saudi oil exports to fall by 50 percent. Oil prices start crashing from $110 a barrel in
mid-2014 to less than $27 a barrel in early 2016.
22. MARCH 2016 - SAUDI ARABIA WARNS US

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, visits Washington, DC, and informs the administration that if Congress were to pass
legislation allowing families of victims of the September 11 attacks to hold the Saudi government responsible in US courts,
Saudi Arabia would be selling up to $750bn in treasury securities and other US assets to avoid them being frozen.
23. SEPTEMBER 2016 - US CONGRESS PASSES LEGISLATION

US Congress passes legislation that would allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi
government. Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement decrying the legislation and pointing out that, "the
erosion of sovereign immunity will have a negative impact on all nations, including the United States".
24. MARCH 2017 - MEETING DONALD TRUMP

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense Prince Mohammed bin Salman visits Washington and has a warm and cordial
meeting with US President Donald Trump. Among the topics that were discussed was Iran and its influence in the region, as well as
deepening economic cooperation between the two nations. Early in 2016, Trump had said in a television interview that as president he
"would want to help Saudi Arabia ... I would want to protect Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is going to have to help us
economically."
25. APRIL 2017 - JAMES MATTIS, US DEFENSE SECRETARY, VISITS SAUDI ARABIA

Mattis reiterates his government’s support to the kingdom and its war on Yemen, which he described as a good way to curb Iran’s
influence in the region.

III. History of US & Iraq Relations (Please check the report video sorry)
US-IRAQ RELATIONS
Diplomatic relations between Iraq and the United States began when the U.S. first recognized Iraq on January 9, 1930, with the
signing of the Anglo-American-Iraqi Convention in London by Charles G. Dawes, U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
The 2003 U.S. military invasion of Iraq and the extended occupation that followed were certainly the most dramatic and significant
events in the long history of U.S. relations with Iraq. During the nine decades since Iraq was established as a separate state in the
aftermath of World War I, the policy of the United States towards it can be divided into five phases.
In each period, the United States pursued distinct goals in Iraq—goals that reflected the growing interest of the United States in the
Middle East, the increasing political and military influence of Iraq, and the evolution of U.S. interests in a rapidly changing
international context.
I. Genesis of U.S.-Iraqi Relations, to 1958

Prior to World War II, the U.S. government took very little interest in Mesopotamia (Greek for "land between the rivers," in reference
to the basin between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and a name used before World War I for the territory that generally formed modern
Iraq).
The first Americans to encounter the region were evangelical Christian missionaries who swarmed across it beginning in the 1830s
and who built hundreds of churches, schools, and medical facilities by the turn of the twentieth century. In 1880-1920, archaeologists
from American universities conducted field work in Mesopotamia in the hope of discovering physical artifacts that would corroborate
Biblical history.
U.S. oil corporations began probing Mesopotamia for commercial opportunities in the 1910s, gaining a 23.75 percent share in the Iraq
Petroleum Company (IPC) in 1928. Within a decade, the IPC discovered a massive oil field near Kirkuk and built a network of wells,
pipelines, and production facilities that earned it considerable wealth.
U.S. government involvement in early Iraq was limited
Eventually, post-World War II international dynamics gradually drew the United States into a deeper political relationship with Iraq.
The onset of the Cold War raised fears in Washington about Soviet expansionism into the Middle East and generated a determination
among American leaders to prevent the spread of communism in Iraq.
By 1955, the United States enlisted Iraq as a charter member of the Baghdad Pact, an anti-Soviet defense partnership linking Iraq,
Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Britain, with informal U.S. backing.
Briefly, it appeared that the United States had found a formula for ensuring the long-term stability and anti-communism of Iraq.
But that appearance evaporated quickly in July 1958, when a coalition of Iraqi military officers, disillusioned by the monarchy's
subservience to the West and inspired by revolutionary leader Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, overthrew the king in a bloody  coup
d'état and instituted a new regime with a distinctly anti-western flavor.
The Iraqi revolution of 1958 clearly marked the failure of the U.S. quest to align the pro-Western, British-built, royalist government of
Iraq on the Western axis in the Cold War.
II. Managing Chronic Instability, 1958-1979

The second phase of U.S.-Iraqi relations was defined by the political instability in Baghdad that came in the wake of the fall of the
Iraqi monarchy in 1958.
The revolution of 1958 was followed by others in 1963, 1968, and 1979. Other revolts reportedly were attempted along the way and
political and ethnic-cultural conflicts generated persistent strife throughout the era.
Nationalists aiming to remove the vestiges of foreign imperialism clashed with indigenous communists who sought political influence.
The Kurdish population of northern Iraq resisted the authority of Arabs in Baghdad.
Although internally unstable, Iraq emerged as an independent power on the international stage. Its government pursued neutralism in
the Cold War and flirted with the Soviet Union and other communist states. It also sought political influence among Arab states and
contested Egyptian dominance of the Arab community of nations. Iraq remained technically at war and occasionally skirmished with
Israel. Management of the delicate Kurdish problem in the 1970s led Baghdad into alternating conflict and cooperation with Iran.
In the 1958-1979 era, the United States pursued interlocking goals in Iraq. On behalf of U.S. political and economic interests in the
country and the region, U.S. officials sought a stable political relationship with the government in Baghdad, aimed to prevent the rise
of communism within the country and to deny the Soviet Union influence there, and strove to prevent Iraq from becoming a source of
regional conflict or war.
U.S. leaders showed little support for democracy in Iraq or the advancement of its people, eschewing any such liberal political goals
on behalf of the primary objective of keeping Iraq free of communism.
For several years after the 1958 coup, U.S. officials accrued some successes in achieving its goals. They maintained diplomatic
relations, negotiated the peaceful termination of the Baghdad Pact, averted conflict in an Anglo-Iraqi showdown over Kuwait in 1961,
dispensed foreign aid to Iraq, and promoted business opportunities there. In light of evidence that the Soviet Union backed Iraqi
Kurds, officials in Washington did nothing to alleviate the Iraqi suppression of that ethnic group.
Nonetheless, U.S.-Iraqi relations declined in the late 1960s.
Iraq severed diplomatic relations in 1967 because it considered the United States complicit in Israeli military conquests during the so-
called Six Day War of June 1967. In the early 1970s, Iraq nationalized U.S. petroleum interests and partnered with the Soviet Union to
develop its oil capacity.
U.S. officials covertly equipped Kurdish rebels in order to weaken the Iraqi government. Although Iraq neutralized the Kurdish
problem through diplomacy with Iran, it criticized foreign powers that backed the Kurds and it displayed renewed anti-U.S. tendencies
in its approach to Arab-Israeli issues in the late 1970s.
III. The Initial Challenge of Saddam Hussein, 1979-1989
The third phase in U.S.-Iraqi relations opened in 1979, when Saddam Hussein seized power in Baghdad. Quickly, Hussein brutally
suppressed all domestic rivals and thereby built internal stability in Baghdad, ending decades of political turmoil.
A secularist, Hussein also positioned himself as a vital bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, where the Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini took power in 1979 and declared an intention to export his revolutionary ideals across the region. [Read  Origins on U.S.-
Iranian Relations]
Mounting tension between the two gulf powers erupted into war in September 1980, when Hussein ordered the Iraqi army to launch a
full-scale invasion of Iran. Iraq initially occupied 10,000 square miles of Iranian territory before Iran stymied the Iraqi thrust. Iran then
gradually recaptured its territory, leading to a stalemate in the battle front by 1982.
A series of massive land offensives proved to be ineffective at breaking the deadlock. Yet the war ground on, widened by missile
attacks on cities and by mutual assaults on oil tankers on the Gulf. By 1988, the two states together counted more than one million
casualties.
President Ronald Reagan gradually led the United States into involvement in the Iran-Iraq War. Initially, Reagan continued the policy
he inherited from Jimmy Carter of practicing strict neutrality in the conflict. By 1982, however, the government in Washington began
to shift toward a position of supporting Iraq.
Iran's military advances worried U.S. officials that it might gain political influence across the region and its support of anti-American
kidnappers in Lebanon soiled its reputation in the West. Despite Hussein's political despotism, U.S. leaders reinterpreted Iraq as a
more benign power and as a vital bulwark against Iranian expansionism.
Thus the Reagan Administration provided Iraq with economic aid, restored diplomatic relations, shared intelligence information about
Iranian military forces, and otherwise engaged in what it called a "tilt" toward Iraq designed to ensure its survival. U.S. officials also
suspended their protests of Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction against Iranian troops and domestic rivals.
By 1987, the Reagan Administration even assumed limited military involvement in the war on behalf of Iraq. When Iran attacked oil
tankers carrying Iraqi oil to world markets, Reagan ordered the U.S. Navy to patrol the Gulf and protect those tankers. Armed clashes
occurred between U.S. and Iranian naval vessels, peaking in late 1987 and mid-1988.
Taking advantage of the relaxation of Cold War tensions, Reagan also worked with Soviet and other world leaders to fashion a United
Nations ceasefire resolution that provided a legal framework for ending the hostilities. Iraq promptly accepted the ceasefire but Iran
refused, demanding that Iraq first must agree to pay war reparations. Pressured by the U.S. Navy, however, Khomeini eventually
accepted the ceasefire in July 1988.
From the U.S. perspective, the Iran-Iraq ceasefire promised to restore a semblance of stability to the Gulf region for the first time in a
decade. Peace on the battlefields would end the bloodletting between the two belligerents and restore lucrative commerce. At the same
time, the dramatic improvement in U.S.-Soviet relations diminished the traditional U.S. concern that communism would sweep across
the region.
With Khomeini contained, U.S. officials hoped that Saddam Hussein would lead his country and the Middle East into an era of peace,
prosperity, and moderation. Yet, U.S. officials refrained from addressing Hussein's dreadful record of human rights abuses, his
aggressive tendencies, and his political despotism; nor did they take steps to curb the Western thirst for Middle East oil.
Subsequent events would demonstrate that such U.S. officials unwisely built a Middle East strategy on the unstable foundation of the
Hussein regime.
IV. The Gulf War and Containment, 1989-2003
The fourth era in U.S. policy toward Iraq featured a short, indecisive war between the two states followed by a "long decade" of
consequential complications.
The military clash originated in Saddam Hussein's decision, in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War, to seek territorial and economic
gains at the expense of Kuwait. In 1989 and 1990, Hussein signaled a growing intention to use force to against the tiny emirate.
Hussein's aggressiveness was prompted by multiple incentives: a desire to capture lucrative oil assets and thus relieve the financial
burdens incurred in the war against Iran; a quest to achieve stature among neighboring leaders and to rally domestic public opinion
behind his regime; and a hope of capturing land that, many Iraqis believed, had been misappropriated to Kuwait decades before.
The George H.W. Bush administration reacted to the mounting tensions by using the relatively stable relationship that emerged during
the 1980s as a brake on Iraqi recklessness. Viewing Iraq as an important counterweight against Iranian expansionism, Bush offered
political friendship and economic incentives to lure Hussein into proper behavior.
When tensions rose and Hussein moved 100,000 troops to the Kuwait border, Bush also bolstered the U.S. naval presence in the Gulf
and warned Hussein against instigating military action.
Yet Bush continued to deal with Hussein constructively—while ignoring his abysmal human rights and foreign policy records—on the
calculation that firmer measures might actually provoke the very aggressive behavior that the United States hoped to prevent.
IV. CURRENT NEWS ON the US, IRAN & MIDDLE EAST
A. IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

COMMITMENTS SET OUT IN THE JOINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF ACTION

• Iran will only install 5,060 oldest and least efficient centrifuges at Natanz until 2026. Iran's uranium stockpile was reduced by
98% to 300kg (660lbs), a figure that must not be exceeded until 2031. It must also keep the stockpile's level of enrichment at
3.67%.

• Iran will redesign and rebuild a modernized heavy water research reactor in Arak. The redesigned and rebuilt Arak reactor
will not produce weapons grade plutonium.

• Research and development must take place only at Natanz and be limited until 2024. No enrichment will be permitted at
Fordo until 2031, and the underground facility will be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center. The 1,044
centrifuges at the site will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.

WHY HAS MR. TRUMP CALLED IT THE “WORST DEAL” AND AN “EMBARRASSMENT”?
He has argued that the Obama administration focused on Iran’s nuclear program while giving insufficient attention to many other of
Iran’s activities, including its support for President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, its intervention in the Yemeni civil war
and the role of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in disrupting the region.
B. US – SAUDI RELATIONS

JAMAL KHASHOGGI AND US - SAUDI RELATIONS

Jamal Khashoggi was an outspoken voice on global issues and a critic of the Kingdom’s policies and the royal family. Mr.
Khashoggi entered the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey where he was murdered and dismembered on
October 2nd, 2018.
EFFECTS ON US - SAUDI RELATIONS
 The U.S. Senate and House have voted in favor of a bill to end supporting the Kingdom’s military actions in Yemen, a
conflict many say is just a proxy war between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
 The U.S. loses a strategic partner in a volatile region, oil prices will likely increase, and the Kingdom foregoes future
investments into the U.S. economy with a consequent loss of billions if not trillions in lifetime trade.
 The Kingdom will then turn to Russia and China, two countries the U.S. is currently at odds with, for security assistance,
intelligence sharing, and arms trade.

Death of Qasem Soleimani

• One of Iran's most powerful men, Soleimani cut a highly controversial figure. He was head of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, an elite unit that handles Iran's overseas operations -- and one deemed to be a foreign terrorist organization by
the US.

• Known as Iran's "shadow commander," Soleimani -- who had led the Quds Force since 1998 -- was the mastermind of
Iranian military operations in Iraq and Syria.

EFFECTS OF THE DEATH OF SOLEIMANI TO SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAN

• Renewal of US-Saudi relations

• Boost the U.S.-Saudi military cooperation and arms sales

• More attacks on US personnel and assets

• Increased activities of terrorist groups

• Negative effect on Saudi’s internal affairs and relations to the Gulf region

IRAN HAS EXECUTED A MAN CONVICTED OF SPYING FOR THE CIA AND ISRAEL'S MOSSAD INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY.
• Mahmoud Mousavi-Majd was accused of reporting on the movements of Iranian forces in Syria and of spying on the
Revolutionary Guards commander, Qasem Soleimani.

V. WHY IS THE US INTERESTED IN THE MIDDLE EAST?

VI. WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE US POLICIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO THE PHILIPPINES?
 GROUP 2:
UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL

BackgroundU.S. - Israel Relations

 Historically, the growth of U.S.-Israel relations can be traced back to the inception of Israel shortly after the World War II.
Since May 14th 1948, the United States has played a vital role in providing aid, advice, resources and assistance to Israel.
Between the years 1976-2004, Israel became the largest recipient of of U.S. foreign aid. The Arab-Israeli Wars through the
course of the 20th century tested the strength of the staunch diplomatic ties between both nations.
 The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as a state in 1948, and the first to recognize Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel in 2017. Israel has long been, and remains, America’s most reliable partner in the Middle East. Israel and the
United States are bound closely by historic and cultural ties as well as by mutual interests.
 Since Israel’s founding in 1948, successive U.S. Presidents and many Members of Congress have demonstrated a
commitment to Israel’s security and to close U.S.-Israel cooperation. Strong bilateral ties influence U.S. policy in the Middle
East, and Congress provides active oversight of the executive branch’s actions. Israel is a leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid
and a frequent purchaser of major U.S. weapons systems.

Roots of the U.S.-Israel Relationship

§ Today, the United States and Israel are the closest of friends and allies. The continued strength of the U.S.-Israel alliance is
rooted in the shared values of the two nations.
§ During more than six decades of state-building, Israelis have looked to the United States for political inspiration, financial
and military assistance and diplomatic support. Americans, in turn, have viewed Israel with a special appreciation for its
successful effort to follow the Western democratic tradition, its remarkable economic development, and itsdetermined
struggle against its uncompromising enemies.

U.S. Assistance to Israel

  Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly US$3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest
annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid ($142.3 billion) since World
War II. Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services.
 More recently, in fiscal year 2019, the US provided $3.8 billion in foreign military aid to Israel. Israel also benefits from
about $8 billion of loan guarantees. Almost all US aid to Israel is now in the form of military assistance, while in the past it
also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits
not available to other countries.

U.S.-Israel Relations:
A Special Alliance
 SincePresident Harry Trumandecided to recognize Israel eleven minutes after its declaration of independence, the United
States and Israel have had a special relationship, which has evolved over time into a web of military, economic, academic,
bureaucratic and personal connections at the local, state and federal levels.

Bilateral Economic Relations

 The United States is Israel’s largest single trading partner. The top five U.S. exports to Israel are: diamonds, semiconductors,
civilian aircraft, telecommunications equipment, and agricultural products.
 The top five U.S. imports from Israel are: diamonds, pharmaceutical products, semiconductors, medicinal equipment, and
telecommunications equipment. U.S. direct investment in Israel is primarily in the manufacturing sector, as is Israeli
investment in the United States.
 The United States and Israel have had a free trade agreement since 1985, serving as the foundation for expanding trade and
investment between the two countries by reducing barriers and promoting regulatory transparency. To facilitate economic
cooperation, the two countries convene a Joint Economic Development Group each year to discuss economic conditions in
both countries and possible economic reforms for the coming year.

ECONOMIC TIES
 In the economic sphere too, the relationship started slowly. The U.S. government provided Israel with a total of $3.2 billion
in aid during the 25 years between 1949 and 1973; in the 23 years since 1974, Israel has received nearly $75 billion, making
it far and away the largest per-capita recipient.
 Secondly, the U.S. government signed its first ever free-trade agreement (FTA) in 1985 with Israel.This unprecedented treaty
opened up the entire U.S. market to Israel by gradually eliminating tariffs. Like most trade agreements, the FTA with Israel
has generated its share of trade disputes, but it has also achieved the intended purpose of increasing the volume of trade: the
total two-way trade came to about $4.7 billion in 1985 and reached over $11 billion in 1995, with U.S. exports to Israel
doubling in the last decade.
 Thirdly, the governments have created institutions to stimulate joint research and development. The Binational Industrial
Research and Development Foundation (BIRD), established in 1977 and capitalized with $55 million from each country,
funds joint U.S.-Israel teams in the development and commercialization of innovative, nondefense technological products,
such as computer software, instrumentation, communications, medical devices, and semiconductors.
 Lastly, in 1984, at a time of economic distress in Israel (450 percent annual inflation, a huge foreign debt, meager foreign
reserves, high unemployment) Secretary of State George Shultz suggested the creation of an American-Israeli Joint
Economic Development Group (JEDG) to work on Israel's economic challenges.

IMPORTANCE OF
US and ISRAEL
The American-Israeli alliance didn’t really cement until around 1973
SUGGESTED REASONS BEHIND THEIR FRIENDSHIP:
common interest in fighting jihadism
American leaders’ ideological attachment to an embattled democracy
sympathized far more with Israel than with Palestine:

THE IMPORTANCE OF ISRAEL TO THE UNITED STATES

 Israel as a useful tool for containing Soviet influence in the Middle East
-which was significant among Arab states, and used diplomatic and military support to weave Israel firmly into the anti-Soviet
bloc.

 Stability in the Middle East continued to be a major American interest , for a number of reasons that included the
global oil market

 the US took on the role as guarantor of regional stability

If there's fear of Jordan being undermined by an internal or external enemy, the United States sometimes turns to Israel to
pose a threat to that threat.

 The US has given Israel $118 billion, $3 billion per year in military aid
There is no economic aid to Israel, other than loan guarantees that continue to be repaid in full and on time.

 about 70 percent of the $3 billion aid must be used by Israel to purchase American military equipment
-This provides real support for US high- tech defense jobs and contributes to maintaining our industrial base
e.g US and Israel are jointly developing state- of-the-art missile defense capabilities

 access to the Red Sea and other vital international shipping and military lanes of commerceand traffic
it is critically important to the US that Israel continues to serve as intelligence operations.

 Israel also has permitted the US to stockpile arms, fuel, munitions and other supplies on its soil
to be accessed whenever America needs them in the region.

 Israel provides the US with real-time, minute-to-minute access to one of the best intelligence services in the world :
  throughout the Middle East
 regarding al- Qaida, Hizbullah, Iran and Hamas
 the US is safer and made more secure because of the mutually dependent and beneficial relationship between the US and
Israel.

 Israel maintains robust military and homeland security capabilities, it also cooperates closely with the United States on
national security matters. A 10-year bilateral military aid memorandum of understanding.

 United States is Israel’s largest trading partner

 Israel regularly seeks help from the United States to bolster its regional security and defense capabilities.

 U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 

 Concerns about Iran dominate Israel’s strategic calculations

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu influenced President Trump’s May 2018 decision to withdraw from the 2015 Iranian
nuclear agreement and to reimpose sanctions on Iran.

 Supporting Israel is good politics in the US

it's also been about domestic politics and the way American politicians read American voters.

 The Pro Israel Lobby

is the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and/or as groups, seek to influence the foreign policy of the United States
in support of Israel or the policies of the government of Israel.

• American Israel Public Affairs (AIPAC)

• engage with and educate decision-makers about the bonds that unite the two countries, and how it is in America’s
best interest to help ensure that the Jewish state remains safe, strong and secure.
• AIPAC works in a bipartisan manner
• Ensuring Israel’s Military Superiority
U.S. desire for Israel to continue its political dominance of the Palestinians and its military dominance of the region

• Other Contributing Factors

• The failure of progressive movements in the United States to challenge U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine in an
effective manner.
• There are significant sectors of the population that question U.S. policy, yet there is a widespread consensus among
elite sectors of government and the media in support of U.S. backing of the Israeli occupation.
• Therefore, while the perceived strategic imperative is at the root of U.S. support for Israel, there are additional factors that
have made this issue more difficult for peace and human rights activists than most others. These include the following:
• The sentimental attachment many liberals
• The Christian Right
• The widespread racism toward Arabs and Muslims so prevalent in American society
CONCLUSION
While U.S. support for Israeli occupation policies, like U.S. support for its allies elsewhere, is primarily based upon the country’s
support for perceived U.S. security interests, there are other factors complicating efforts by peace and human rights groups to change
U.S. policy. Despite these obstacles, the need to challenge U.S. support of the Israeli occupation is more important than ever. Not only
has it led to enormous suffering among the Palestinians and other Arabs, ultimately it hurts the long-term interests of both Israel and
the United States, as increasingly militant and extremist elements arise out of the Arab and Islamic world in reaction.
U.S. support of the Israeli government has repeatedly sabotaged the efforts of peace activists in Israel to change Israeli policy. Perhaps
the best kind of support the United States can give Israel is that of “tough love”–unconditional support for Israel’s right to live in
peace and security within its internationally recognized border, but an equally clear determination to end the occupation. This is the
challenge for those who take seriously such basic values as freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.

US-ISRAEL TO THE WORLD

US-ISRAEL and
UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY

Secretary General
Kofi Annan – “Unfairly judged by the International Body”

Secretary General
Antonio Guterres
(2017) – US Senators:
“To ensure that Israel is treated better”

Non-Political Resolution
- The resolution on the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa called on member states to assist in the
agricultural growth of developing nations in need of agricultural infrastructure and stability. The resolution ensures that
bringing agricultural technology to nations in need will remain a top priority of the United Nations.

US to UNHR:
“Anti-Israel bias within the council”

US-ISRAEL to UNESCO
- The United States and Israel left the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 
 - They would continue their work in preserving world heritage sites in their countries, while Washington also made it clear that
it will continue to play a role in the organization as an observer.
- In 2016, a UNESCO resolution initially proposed by Arab member states concerning occupied East Jerusalem ignored Jewish
historical links to that part of the city
- The US has pulled out of UNESCO before. The Reagan administration did so in 1984 because it viewed the agency as
mismanaged, corrupt, and used to advance Soviet interests. The US rejoined in 2003.

US-ISRAEL and
EGYPT

US-ISRAEL and
WORLD

IMPORTANCE OF US AND ISRAEL TO THE PHILIPPINES

US AND PHILIPPINE RELATIONS
The United States established diplomatic relations with the Philippines in 1946. U.S.-Philippine relations are based on strong historical
and cultural linkages and a shared commitment to democracy and human rights.
Strong people-to-people ties and economic cooperation provide additional avenues to engage on a range of bilateral, regional, and
global issues.

U.S. Assistance to Philippines

The U.S. government’s goals in the Philippines are to strengthen democratic governance and support Philippine government efforts to
promote inclusive development and contribute to security and development cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.

Bilateral Economic Relations

The United States and the Philippines have a strong trade and investment relationship, with over $27 billion in goods and services
traded (2086). The United States is one of the largest foreign investors in the Philippines, and is the Philippines’ third-largest trading
partner.

ISRAEL AND PHILIPPINE RELATIONS

The Philippines and Israel relations have always been warm and friendly. Political, Cultural, Economic, Scientific and Technological
cooperation between the two countries continue to prosper.

The Philippines supported the UN Resolution 181 on the partition of Palestine and the Creation of the State of Israel in 1947.

ISRAEL AND PHILIPPINE RELATIONS

Philippines and Israel Trade Cooperation
 Import and exports
Trade between the Philippines and Israel continue to register growth, owing to the promotion efforts conducted by the Embassy to
attract more exchange in trade between the two countries.
Labor Relations
Bilateral and Military Relationships

CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN

US AND ISRAEL
CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN
US AND ISRAEL

Bush rejected Israeli strike on Iran.

• 2008 Israel gave serious thought to a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel asked U.S. for green light to bomb
nuclearsitesin Iran but U.S. Presiden George W. Bush said that he would not support it.
• Bush decision appeared to be based on two factors

CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN

US AND ISRAEL
 Israel annexation of the West Bank
- The vast majority of the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law, though Israel and
the US under the Trump administration dispute this interpretation.
 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States will not consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank as violation
of international law.
 US Aid to Israel
-Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The US financial support to Israel has been exceeding the three billion
mark per year since 1985, the majority of which is in military aid.
 Impact of Israel boycott questioned as another US church steps into controversy
– Us Mennonite church passed Israel-Palestine Resolution.
– One of the authors of the resolution, Andre Gingerich Stoner, explained that the resolution wasn’t only written with
immediate economic pressure in mind, there was also a symbolic component: “It will have a minimal economic
impact. The greater impact is the moral statement and the appeal that it’s making to others.”
 Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu's Strained Relationship
– Ideological differences on how to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict
– Respective policies on preventing Iran from making a nuclear bomb.
 President Trump began recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
– In December 2017, Mr. Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and ordered the United States
Embassy to move there from Tel Aviv, a symbolic decision that outraged Palestinians who also claim territory in the
city.
U.S. – China Relations
History
1949
Peoples of Republic of China Established
- Mao Zedong establishes the People’s Republic of China in Beijing after peasant-backed Communists defeat the Nationalist
government of Chiang Kai-shek. United States – which backed the Nationalists against invading Japanese forces during
World War II?
- October 1
- Limited Us relation to mainland china

1950
Korean War Break Out
- The Soviet – backed North Korean People’s Army invades South Korea. The United Nations and the United States rush
South Korea’s defense.
- 3 years conflict. Million died

1964
China’s First Atomic Test
- China joins the nuclear club and conducts its first test of an atomic bomb. The test amid U.S.-Sino tensions over the
escalating conflict in Vietnam.
- October 1964
-

1972
Nixon Visits China
- He meets Chairman Mao Zedong and signs the Shanghai Communique with Premier Zhou Enlai. The communiqué sets the
stage for improved U.S.-Sino relations by allowing China and the United States to discuss difficult issues, particularly
Taiwan.
- 8 days in china , February 1972
- Normalization was slow progress

1979
Formal Ties and One China Policy
- U.S. President Jimmy Carter grants China full diplomatic recognition, while acknowledging mainland China’s One China
principle and severing normalities with Taiwan. Congress approves the Taiwan Relations Act, the act requires Washington to
provide Taipei with defensive arms, but does not officially violate the U.S.’s One China policy.
- Allowing continued commercial and cultural relation with Taiwan.

1982
China in the Regan Era
- Reagan administration then signs in August 1982 a third joint communiqué with the People’s Republic of China to normalize
relations. The U.S. government permits Beijing to make of U.S. military equipment.

BUT
1989
Tiananmen Square Massacre
- Thousands of students hold demonstrations in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, demanding democratic reforms and an end to
corruption. Government send some troops and killing hundreds of students.
- June 3 send military troops to clean the protest leaving dead
- Stop military equipment

1990
China’s Economic Policy
- Products being sold around the world
- Low cost

1996
Taiwan’s First Free Presidential Vote
- China recalls its ambassador after President Bill Clinton authorized a visit by Lee, reversing a fifteen-year-old U.S. policy
against granting visas to Taiwan’s leaders.
- Washington and Beijing exchange officials again

2000
Normal Trade Relation
- Bill Clinton signs the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 granting Beijing permanent normal trade relations with the United
States and paving the way for China to join World Trade Organization.
- Us –china trade 5 billion to 231 billion

2007
China Increases Military Spending
- China announces an 18 percent budget increase in defense spending, totalling more than $45 billion. China says it is spending
to provide its soldiers with better training and higher wages.
- 15% a year 1990-2005
- Chinas military is not consistent, full rise stated goal. High salary for soldier, better training
 - To protect territory integrity, protect national security

2010
China Becomes World’s Second-Largest Economy
- China surpasses Japan, China is on track to overtake the United States as the world’s number one economy by 2027.
- 1.33 trillion 2010
- Japan 1.28 trillion
- 5.88 tri, - japan 5.87 trillion

2012
Rising Trade Tension
- The United States and its allies contend China’s quota violates international trade norms, forcing multinational firms that use
the metals to relocate to China. In November 2012, the 18th National Party Congress concludes with the most significant
leadership –70% relocated leader – the Politburo Standing Committee, the Central Military Commission, and the State
Council – are replaced.
- 273 trillionUS trade deficit, 29.5
- March 2012 – EU, Japan consultation on China –earth material
- Metals to relocated china
- Xi jinping – ho jintao

2013
Sunnylands Summit
- President Barrack Obama hosts China President Xi Jinping for a “shirt-sleeves summit” at the Sunnylands Estate. Obama and
Xi also vows to establish a “new model” of relations, a nod to Xi’s concept of establishing a “new type of great power
relations” for the United States and China.
- Bilateral –regional issues.

2015
U.S. Warns China Over South China Sea
- U.S Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter calls on China to halts its controversial land reclamation efforts in the South China
Sea, saying that the United States opposes “any further militarization” of the disputed territory.
- Military equipment and not civilian usage

2017
Trump Affirms One China Policy After Raising Doubts
- Trump breaks with established practice by speaking on the telephone with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and questioning
the U.S. commitment to its One China policy. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, visiting Beijing in March, describes the U.S.-
China relationship as one “built on non-confrontation, no conflict, mutual respect, and always searching for win-win
situations.”
- Trump welcomes Xi Jinping for a summit at the Mar-a-Lago in Florida, where bilateral trade and North Korea top the
agenda.
-

2018
Trump Tariffs Target China
- U.S. products, stoking concerns of a trade war between the world’s largest economies.
- 50 billion
- China stilling us intelligent
- Steal and aluminium
- Shoes on Chinese product in US
- July – 34 billion dollar Chinese goods and products, industrial and transport
- Import tax
- Tariff to global market

U.S.-China Trade War Escalates

- More than eight hundred Chinese products in the industrial and transport sectors, as well as foods such as televisions and
medical devices, will race a 25 percent import tax. Trump and members of his administration believe that China is “ripping
off” United States.

2019
Huawei Sues the United States
- Amid legal proceedings against Meng, Huawei sues the United States in a separate lawsuit fir banning U.S. federal agencies
from using the telecom giant’s equipment. Trump administration launches an aggressive campaign to other countries not to
use Huawei equipment in building 5g, use it for spying.
-

Trump Signs Bill Supporting Hong Kong Protesters

- Trump signs the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act after it passes in the U.S. Congress with overwhelming
majorities.
- Sunction, in US vessels visiting hong kong

2020
Phase One Trade Deal Signed
- The deal relaxes some U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports and commits China to buy an additional $200 billion worth of
American goods, including agricultural products and cars, over two years.
- Intellectual property protection against china
- Drop china as currency manipulator

Tension Soar Amid Coronavirus Pandemic

- Leading officials in both China and the United States blame the other side for the pandemic. A Chinese Foreign Ministry
spokesperson claims that the U.S. Military brought the virus to China, while the President Trump references to the “Chinese
Virus,” which he says spread because of failures by the Chinese government.
- March as pandemic
- April highly for cooperation
- Who bias to china

Conflicts & Issues

Over the pass 30 year china has seen in technologic and economical rise
Us and china shared interest in promoting strong and open global economy, inclusive growth, sustainable development and stable
international financial system supported by the multilateral economic institutions founded in the end of WWII.
Both countries benefited from this relation
Chinese Dream –international stage military fund
- South china sea

Asia’s rise
Asia is now home to half of the 20 fastest growing economies, generates two-thirds of global growth, and accounts for 40 percent of
global GDP. Sixty percent of the world’s population lives in the continent, and the size of Asia’s middle class (notably including
China and India) are expected to reach nearly 2.3 billion people, or 65 percent of the world’s total by 2030.
The United States has five formal treaty allies in Asia and currently deploys, including Indo-Pacific Command.
Given Asia’s growing importance, China’s behavior has assumed even greater significance for many in the United States. Not only in
China’s behavior intrinsically important to the United States, but it is occurring in a region that is now more meaningful to both US
interests and to global order than at any time since the end of the Cold War. In Hawaii, over 350,000 US troops in the region from
across all armed services.
U.S. Withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord
- The Trump Administration made the destructive decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, Beijing and
Washington had cooperated o pursue benefits not only for themselves but for the world in curbing climate change.
- 2 degree Celsius to 1.5 degree
- All parties must perform their part
- Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on
American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement.”
- According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have
declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that time span and is
nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.
- By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170
million metric ton decline. At the same time, China’s carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons. And India’s
grew by 1 billion metric tons.
- During a recent climate hysteria town hall event on CNN, Trump tweeted out a thread of facts that CNN ignored during its
events.
1. Which country has the largest carbon emission reduction? AMERICA! Trump tweeted.
2. Who has dumped the most carbon into the air? CHINA!
3. 91% of the world’s population are exposed to air pollution above the World HEALTH Organization’s suggested level.
NONE ARE IN THE U.S.A.!
4. The U.S. now leads the world in energy production... BUT...
5. Who’s got the world’s cleanest and safest air and water? AMERICA! Trump tweeted.

U.S. – China Trade War for Technological Supremacy

- TRADE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE US AND CHINA STALLED
- THE US SAID CHINA RENEGED ON PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS IN A DRAFT AGREEMENT, LEADING BOTH
SIDES TO RAISE TARIFFS ON EACH OTHER.
- THE CENTRAL ISSUES THE US RAISED WHEN IT IGNITED A TRADE WAR WITH CHINA LAST YEAR:
INTELLECTUALPROPERTY RULES, GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS.

HOW HAS THE U.S. TRADE DEFICIT GROWN

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RULES

- United States President has repeatedly lashed out at China’s lax IPR protection laws, forced technology transfer and alleged
Intellectual property theft, saying it costs the US as much as US$600 billion per year, a charge China has denied.
- China will improve its IPR protection to bolster innovation and support industries, but not as a result of US pressure
 - “The US does not trust the system: the Chinese government-dominated system, the socialist approach and Made in China
2025. They are speaking different languages.”
- Trump's tariffs policy aims to encourage consumers to buy American products by making imported goods more expensive.
- The US has imposed tariffs on more than $360bn (£268bn) of Chinese goods, and China has retaliated with tariffs on more
than $110bn of US products.
- Washington delivered three rounds of tariffs in 2018, and a fourth one in September last year. The most recent round targeted
Chinese imports, from meat to musical instruments, with a 15% duty.
- Beijing hit back with tariffs ranging from 5% to 25% on US goods.

BEIJING VS. WASHINGTON

- Chinese investments in, and technical exchanges with, the United States contributed greatly to the development of cutting-
edge technologies in Silicon Valley and beyond, and still do. Americans have also obtained economically priced and
increasingly well-made products designed, assembled, or manufactured in China.
- As trade tensions escalated , Trump seems intent on preventing China from becoming great again. The catalyst for the trade
war is China’s strident “Made in China 2025” industrial upgrade strategy introduced by Beijing in 2015.
- “Made in China 2025” aims to achieve China’s eventual economic transformation from a low-cost manufacturing hinterland
to a great innovation power. This remains the top priority of President Xi Jinping and his comrades in years to come.
However, such a prowess has caused more fears than appreciations across advanced economies in the US and Europe. As an
industrial development guideline, Beijing eyes are on 10 strategically and technologically important sectors, including
information technology, biotech, robotics, aerospace and clean-energy vehicles.
- President Xi’s team is tailoring the initiative to produce national champions that can lead China’s dominance in the above 10
sectors, with the aim of eventually replacing foreign technology with domestic suppliers.
- US’s unassailable lead to semiconductor sector manufacturing has been the successful result of Silicon Valley and world-
class scientific research institutes for at least 50 years. This particular sector remains under US dominance without any
formidable competitor.
- The NSS argues that US companies in these sectors are a strategic asset that needs to be protected from rivals like China, and
China is a special concern because it employs a variety of legal and illicit means to acquire US technology. The US business
community shares these concerns about the escalating technology competition and the importance of American companies
being leaders in these high-tech sectors.
- Given that China, like the rest of the developed world, will rely on US core technology in semiconductors for the foreseeable
future, Beijing may have little choice but to play by global trade rules.

A "NEW COLD WAR"

Huawei controversy
- US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described Huawei and other Chinese state-run technology companies as "Trojan horses
for Chinese intelligence."
- Washington fired its most recent salvo against Huawei on May 15, aiming at the company's very heart: chip production. The
US said American machines, tools or other products would no longer be allowed to be involved in Huawei chip production
anywhere in the world.
- Chinese President Xi Jinping announced plans to invest $1.4 trillion (€1.3 trillion) in building 5G networks and developing
artificial intelligence over the next six years, helping to ensure China's technological independence.

Corona Virus Pandemic and USA

- Donald Trump called the pandemic the "worst attack" the US had ever experienced, and put the blame squarely on China.
- "This is worse than Pearl Harbor. This is worse than the World Trade Center," Trump said. "And it should have never
happened. Could've been stopped at the source. Could've been stopped in China. It should've been stopped right at the source.
And it wasn't." unleashed by Chinese mismanagement, but had been manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan.
- American resentment toward China has increased dramatically, stoked by the explicit efforts by the Trump administration to
pin the blame for all aspects of the pandemic on the PRC.
- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly sought to formalise criticism of China, such as in communiques at the G7 .
Just last week, he also declared the US had “significant evidence”the pandemic was not just a disaster unleashed by Chinese
mismanagement, but had been manufactured in a laboratory in Wuhan

How it affects the United States

Today
- US-China trade relationship supports roughly 2.6 million jobs in the United States across a range of industries, including jobs
that Chinese companies have created in America.
- As the Chinese middle class continues its rapid expansion over the next decade (the number of Chinese middle-class
consumers will exceed the entire population of the United States by 2026), US companies face significant opportunities to tap
into a new and lucrative customer base that can further boost employment and economic growth.
- Economic data show that nations trading closely with China outperform nations with less integrated trade ties, and we expect
this trend to continue.
 - China purchased $165 billion in goods and services from the United States in 2015, representing 7.3 percent of all US exports
and about 1 percent of total US economic output.

Examples of the benefits to the U.S. Economy from trade with China
- China purchased $165 billion in goods and services from the United States in 2015, representing 7.3 percent of all US exports
and about 1 percent of total US economic output.
- US firms sell high-value products to China, including cars and trucks, construction equipment, and semiconductors, which
support jobs.
- America’s 11th-largest export market in 2000, China has grown to become the third-largest destination for American goods
and services. US exports to China directly and indirectly supported 1.8 million new jobs and $165 billion in GDP in 2015.
- China is expected to continue to be one of the fastest growing major economies, creating growth opportunities for American
companies.
- Chinese manufacturing also lowered prices in the United States for consumer goods, dampening inflation and putting more
money in American wallets.
- Since 2003, productivity growth in US manufacturing outpaced most advanced economies. US factories are still 90 percent
more productive than Chinese manufacturers.

How the Trade war affects the U.S.:

- Immense negative impact on American exports because tariffs increase the prices for specific exported goods, making them
undesirable or difficult to sell in foreign nations.
- The American agricultural industry has slowed down immensely since the beginning of the Trade War, most notably due to
the $10.4 billion decrease in agricultural product demand from China from 2017 to 2018.
- The decline in US exports has negatively affected businesses across the United States.
- Consumers are negatively impacted by an increase in price levels.

Trade War to Tech War

- U.S and China are caught on a race of racing tariffs on each other. The US slaps a high tariff on certain products then China
retaliates. China wants to be the “Made in China 2025”
- “Huawei” banned.
- Long term effect - The tech world is being “disentangled” into separate US-centric and Chinacentric supply chains, says Pat
Gelsinger.

U.S – China Worldview

How it affect the World
The world’s leading SUPERPOWERS
- Financial Leadership
- Trade War
- Race of Tariffs

Economic SUPERPOWER
- 1978 Deng Xiaoping, opening up China’s economy to the world and the country became “the world’s factory”
I. The country’s GDP tripled 1988, 15% of China’s export went to America
- October 2000, Normalized Trade Relations. U.S. President Bill Clinton signs the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 in
October, granting Beijing permanent normal trade relations with the United States and paving the way for China to join the
World Trade Organization in 2001. Between 1980 and 2004, U.S.-China trade rises from $5 billion to $231 billion. In 2006,
China surpasses Mexico as the United States’ second-biggest trade partner, after Canada.

Trade War Trade War

- Unfair play of China’s Economy – Racial discrimination, favoring its citizen (lower tax, lands, subsidies)
- In July 2018 America imposed tariffs of 25% on $34bn worth of Chinese products. That almost doubled the average tariff
rate on Chinese imports from 3.8% to 6.7%. And its American firms that have to pay that tax. But with every increase from
America, came an increase from China. Since the start of the trade war China has more than doubled its average tariff rate.
America’s has tripled.

NEGATIVE – International Monetary Fund (IMF) Expect economic growth to be a lot lower in the future. (Because of the
tension arising during the trade war) The global economy is slowing down. With the escalation, financial markets from Asia,
Europe to the US have seen steep declines. Disruption of global supply chains.
POSITIVE – Search for import substitutes and the rerouting of global supply chains may benefit Southeast Asia it is because of
the region geographic location, strong supply of chains, well establish distribution of network and low labour costs.
Trade War Ceasefire
- Ambitious America – China to buy more American products and tighten up their intellectual property rules.
- China’s Glory – Chinese government wants its economy to do well, and its citizens to get richer.

FINANCIAL LEADERSHIP
United States of America
(Banking system VISA and MASTER CARD)
- Global financial view, America is the king.
- It controls the world financial plumbing.
- Accounts for almost a quarter (1/4) of the world economy.
- Dollar makes up most central bank reserves, and currency of international trade, 80% of global chains use dollars.
China
(Tencent and Ant Financial – Ali Pay ($49TRN sales) Belt Road Initiative (Youtube)
- Second largest economy
- Bigger asset than America and EU (INTERNAL)
- Yet, Chinese banks account only 7% of cross boarder lending.
- From January to April 2020 no bonds fall relatively stable unlike other markets.

U.S.- U.S.-CHINA CHINA

How it affects the Philippines
Trade War
- Silver lining – Boosted income and exports of countries that are in partnership of both countries.
- Trade redirection – The reason is that the US – instead of importing from China – will choose to import from firms located in
other countries unaffected by the new tariffs.

Exports could be our saving grace

 lower the costs of doing business,
 beef up our competitiveness, and
 promote enough export-oriented manufacturers.

- In spite of the trade war, investment in the Philippines grew in the second quarter of 2018. Manufacturing received the most
investment, followed by construction.
- Efforts to boost the nation’s competitiveness can enhance its position. Tax reform and President Rodrigo Duterte’s “build,
build, build” programme for infrastructure.
- Last May, Duterte also signed the Ease of Doing Business Act, meant to cut bureaucratic red tape and streamline procedures
for business applications. China Telecom and AT&T are among the foreign companies interested in becoming the country’s
third telcoms player, breaking the prevailing duopoly and improving services.
- The trade war will greatly affect electronics, which amount to more than half of Philippine export revenue and nearly a
quarter of its import bill, based on July 2018 figures.

Potential impact on ASEAN of the US-China trade war

Country GDP EXPORT
VIETNAM 2.2 7.3
CAMBODIA 1.1 6.6
MALAYSIA 0.5 1.9
LAOS 0.4 1.3
THAILAND 0.3 1.1
PHILIPPINES 0.2 1.6
BRUNEI 0.1 0.2
INDONESIA 0.1 0.8
SINGAPORE 0.1 0.2

GROUP 4
OBAMA CARES
Patient protection and affordable care act
• A piece of legislation passed by the 111th Congress
• Signed into law by former President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
• The federal government’s most comprehensive overhaul of the country’s health care system since the creation of the
Medicare and the Medicaid in 1965
Why the affordable care act was enacted?
• Failed overhaul of the nation’s health systems by past administrations
• Plans ran into an array of formidable obstacles, including force opposition from stakeholders such as the American Medical
Association, business and the insurance industry
• Fragmented political institutions that made passing health care legislation exceedingly difficult even when a president’s party
controlled congress
• Americans’ skepticism about the government enabled opponents to scare the public with the specter of socialized medicine
and tales of horrors in foreign health systems
Obamacare Main goals
 Provide affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans
 Increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance
 Streamline the delivery of health care services
 Reduce the overall costs of health care for everyone by restricting certain insurance company practices and providing tax
credits and subsidies for individuals and businesses
 Reduce the amount of uncompensated care the average US family pays for by requiring everyone to have health insurance or
pay a tax penalty
 Aims to help small businesses to get health insurance for their workers
-small businesses were to receive help in funding the cost of providing health insurance
 -new tax credits made it affordable for them to buy health insurance for employees
“Everyone should have access to quality, affordable health care and no one should ever go broke just because they get sick”
2 key features that began in 2014
1. INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
- requires anyone not covered by an employer-sponsored health plan or a public insurance program like Medicaid and
Medicare to purchase a private health insurance from a list of government-certified packages or pay a penalty
2. EMPLOYER MANDATE
-requires business that employ more than 50 people to offer health insurance coverage for full time employees or pay a
penalty of $2000 for each uninsured worker
-$3000 fine for each low-income employee who is a federal subsidy for insurance in those instances where the employer is
already offering coverage
How does the obamacare work?
The Obamacare provides better coverage for those who already have existing insurance and more options for those who don’t
including a new way to shop for affordable, high quality coverage.
If an individual has already an existing insurance, Obamacare provides new benefits and protections including:
-wellness visits
-mammograms
-birth control for women
-immunization for kids
All can be availed with no extra co-payments or fees
 Young adults can be under their parents’ insurance until they turn 26
 No lifetime limit on insurance coverage
 Your insurance company must use at least 80% of your premium that you are receiving on actual health care not on
administrative costs and CEO bonuses
FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE, THEY SHOULD BUY THEIR OWN.
WITH OMABACARE:
 Enrol starting October 1 of a year to the last day of March the following year
-choose from the metal levels of health plan available which fits your needs and your budget
 Eligible individuals pay less for private health insurance or qualify for other free or low cost programs (to qualify, your
household income must be between 100% of the federal poverty level and 400% of the federal poverty level)
-if still unable to afford, tax credits are offered to subsidize their health insurance in the form of premium subsidies
COVERS A CORE SET OF HEALTH CARE BENEFITS:
 Doctors’ visits
 Emergency care
 Prescriptions and lab tests
 Rehabilitation for illness/injury
 Mental health services
OTHER SERVICES:
 Discount for Senior citizens’ drug prescriptions
How the uninsured become insured?
MARKETPLACE
-website where individuals can browse various health care plans available as well as compare and purchase them
-The health insurance plans are offered by private companies but are all required to offer all essential health benefits, such as
hospital care, outpatient services, emergency services etc
What has been done to pursue OBAMA CARE
TIMELINE
July 2009: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and a group of Democrats from the House of Representatives reveal their plan
for overhauling the health-care system. It’s called H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
August 25, 2009: Massachusetts senator Ted Kennedy, a leading supporter of health-care reform, dies and puts the Senate
Democrats’ 60-seat supermajority required to pass a piece of legislation at risk.
September 24, 2009: Democrat Paul Kirk is appointed interim senator from Massachusetts, which temporarily restores the
Democrats’ filibuster-proof 60th vote.
November 7, 2009: In the House of Representatives, 219 Democrats and one Republican vote for the Affordable Health Care
for America Act, and 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans vote against it.
December 24, 2009: In the Senate, 60 Democrats vote for the Senate’s version of the bill, called America’s Healthy Future
Act, whose lead author is senator Max Baucus of California. Thirty-nine Republicans vote against the bill, and one
Republican senator, Jim Bunning, does not vote.
 January 2010: In the Senate, Scott Brown, a Republican, wins the special election in Massachusetts to finish out the
remaining term of US senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat. Brown campaigned heavily against the health-care law and won an
upset victory in a state that consistently votes in favor of the Democratic party. 
March 11, 2010: Now lacking the 60th vote needed to pass the bill, Senate Democrats decide to use budget reconciliation in
order to get to one bill approved by the House and the Senate. The use of budget reconciliation only requires 51 Senators to
vote in favor of the bill in order for it to go to the president’s desk for signature.
March 21, 2010: The Senate’s version of the health-care plan is approved by the House in a 219-212 vote. All Republicans
and 34 Democrats vote against the plan.
March 23, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act into law. 
COMMITMENT
Reform certainly would not have passed without Obama’s fateful decisions to pursue comprehensive action in 2009 and then
to press on in 2010 when the outcome was in jeopardy.
Nancy Pelosi’s unwavering determination to finish legislation, instead of retreating to incrementalism, when many
Democrats temporarily lost their nerve following the special Senate election in Massachusetts.
Harry Reid’s underrated success in mobilizing all sixty members of the Democratic caucus in December 2009 to pass
legislation on a party-line vote when conventional wisdom inside the Beltway held that only bipartisan legislation was
possible.
LEARNING FROM HISTORY
The Obama administration’s strategy was evidently to do the opposite of what the Clinton administration tried; the Clinton
plan became a blueprint for what not to do in health reform.
OBAMA CLINTON
sought to exempt small businesses from any mandate health plan mandated that all employers pay for their
and reassure Americans happy with their insurance that workers’ health insurance and changed how most
they could keep their plans Americans with employer-sponsored insurance would
get coverage.

successfully pressed Senate leaders to put reconciliation filibuster shortcut that the Clinton administration had not
instructions for health reform into the budget resolution obtained.
touted incremental, friendly-sounding reforms such as strong, centralized, and system wide cost controls,
electronic health records, prevention, and medical including premium caps and a national health care
homes. budget.
BUDGETS AND TAXES
The Obama administration thus avoided proposals for budgeting or system wide price controls, although it did fight to adopt
the controversial “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans.
Congress and the Obama administration reversed course from 1993–94 by proposing tax increases on wealthier Americans to
pay for expanding coverage. Although “New Democrat” Clinton had sought to avoid any new taxes, Democrats in 2010
embraced explicitly redistributive financing.

HOLDING DEMOCRATS TOGETHER

The Obama administration thus avoided proposals for budgeting or system wide price controls, although it did fight to adopt
the controversial “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans.
Congress and the Obama administration reversed course from 1993–94 by proposing tax increases on wealthier Americans to
pay for expanding coverage. Although “New Democrat” Clinton had sought to avoid any new taxes, Democrats in 2010
embraced explicitly redistributive financing.
IF YOU CAN’T BEAT INTEREST GROUPS, CO-OPT THEM
Arguably the most consequential decision that reformers made in 2009 was to work with, rather than against, health system
stakeholders.
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats sought to neutralize any stakeholder opposition. The administration
negotiated deals with health industry groups to support reform in exchange for the promise of having millions of newly
insured patients to treat.
POLITICAL PRAGMATISM
The willingness to make deals with health-industry groups underscored another key reason why reform passed in 2010:
commitment to compromise and pragmatism. Since the 1940s, many Democrats have dreamed of enacting national health
insurance, a government-sponsored insurance program for the whole country.
PROGRAMS AND PROVISIONS
PROGRAMS
 The ACA has improved consumer protections by eliminating many of the worst practices of the health insurance industry,
such as charging more or denying coverage because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer.
 The law prohibits health plans from putting annual or lifetime dollar limits on most benefits you receive. And families can
now add or keep children on their health insurance policy until they turn 26 years old.
 The ACA has helped to shift the United States toward a health care delivery system based on primary care by increasing
payment rates for primary care physicians who accept Medicaid or work in rural areas and investing in the Teaching Health
Center Graduate Medical Education program to support training for more primary care physicians.
1. CONSUMER POTECTION
 • Get affordable health coverage regardless of any pre-existing conditions they have
• Access health coverage through the Marketplace in their state
• Keep existing health coverage for young adults under a parent's health plan
• Obtain certain preventive services included in their health coverage without cost sharing
2. Health Insurance Company Responsibilities
Major features of the PPACA require most health insurance companies and the plans they offer to:
• Provide a standardized Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) so consumers can easily understand their coverage and
compare it to other available options;
• Provide coverage for consumers with pre-existing conditions;
• Refrain from terminating coverage after they've already agreed to cover consumers (unless an exception applies);
• Offer a core comprehensive set of benefits, EHB, when offering coverage to individual consumers and small employers; and
• Prohibit annual and lifetime dollar limits on coverage of EHB.
3. CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program)
(Federal government contributes a set amount instead of paying a specific percentage of state’s cost)
A health coverage program for:
• Uninsured children up to age 19 whose family income is too high for them to qualify for Medicaid
• Low-income pregnant women and/or newborns in some states who do not qualify for Medicaid
Comprehensive coverage:
• Routine checkups • Immunizations • Doctor visits • Prescriptions • Dental and vision care • Inpatient and outpatient hospital
care • Laboratory and X-ray services • Emergency services
PROVISION
TITLE I – Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans
 Health, insurance exchanges
TITLE II – The Role of Public Programs
 Anyone whose income is below 138 percent of then federal poverty level.
TITLE III – Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care
 The gap in prescription rug coverage, known as the doughnut hole
TITLE IV – Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health
 Tabacco-free living
 Preventing drug abuse and excessive alcohol use.
 Healthy eating
 Active living
 Injury and violence – free living
 Reproductive and sexual health
 Mental and emotional health
TITLE V – Health Care Workforce
 Funds scholarships and loans to increase the number of primary case physicians
TITLE VI – Transparency and Program Integrity
 Act requires doctors to report on any financial interest they have with imaging companies
TITLE VII – Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies
 Drug discount to hospitals that serve low-income patients.
TITLE VIII – Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act
 $50 daily payment to put toward assisted living.
TITLE IX – Revenue Provisions
 Raises Medicare Taxes to 2.35 percent on incomes above $200,000 for individuals or $250,00 per family
TITLE X – Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
 Modernizes health care services for 1.9 million Native Americans.
Income Source
$210.2 billion to be raised by a 0.9 percent increase Medicare tax on earned income
$60 billion  an annual fee paid by health insurance providers.
$27 billion  fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name
drugs.
$20 billion from a 2.3 percent Excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain
medical devices.
$32 billion from a 40 percent “Cadillac,” or high-cost, insurance plans (to be
implemented in 2018).
$15.2 billion from raising the 7.5 percent on the IRS’s medical expenses tax deduction to 10
percent.
$13 billion from limiting the annual contributions to certain health
care spending accounts to $2,500.
$132 billion Reduced funding for Medicare Advantage policies.
 $40 billion reduced Medicare home health care payments.
$22 billion reduced spending on certain Medicare hospital
payments.
$14.9 billion from all other sources (including a 10 percent tax on
indoor tanning salons)

2014 2016
Individuals and Families with income over $9,500 will be Penalty: The penalty rose to $695 for individuals and $2,085 or
required to buy insurance. up to 2.5% of total household income.
Penalty: $95 for individual and $285 or up to 1% of total
household income.
EXEMPTIONS:
 The least expensive policy would exceed 8% of total income
 Religious denominations that don’t pay Social Security Taxes.

Least Expensive Plan:

2016 – the so-called “Bronze – level health plan” – will cost $4,500-$5,000 per year for an individual, and $12,000-$12,500 per year
for a family

PERSONALITIES
Barrack Obama(PRESIDENT)
Jonathan Gruber (economist)
Joe Biden(senate president)
Republican
Donald Trump(repealed the Act and the mandate)
OBAMACARE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF OBAMACARE TO THE AMERICANS
Advantages
• More Americans have health insurance
There is an increase in the number of newly insured people in America within the first five years of Obamacare.
• Slows the rise of health care cost.
This means that people receive treatment before they need expensive emergency room services. In addition, health insurance
is made more affordable for many people.
• It requires all insurance plans to cover 10 essential benefits
10 ESSESNTIAL HEALT BENEFITS

• Prevents denial of coverage due to pre-existing health conditions

Pre-existing condition such as cancer, made it difficult to many people to get health insurance before the Obamacare.
• Lower drug costs
Many people, particularly senior citizens, are unable to afford all their medications that is why the Obamacare made
medicines more affordable.
• Children can stay on their parents’ health insurance plans
Under the current law, if your plan covers children, you can now add or keep your children on your health insurance policy
until they turn 26 years old.
• Prevents denial of coverage due to pre-existing health conditions
Pre-existing condition such as cancer, made it difficult to many people to get health insurance before the Obamacare.
 • Lower drug costs
Many people, particularly senior citizens, are unable to afford all their medications that is why the Obamacare made
medicines more affordable.
• Children can stay on their parents’ health insurance plans
Under the current law, if your plan covers children, you can now add or keep your children on your health insurance policy
until they turn 26 years old.
Disadvantages
• Increased taxes
Several new taxes were passed into law to help pay for the ACA, including taxes on medical device and pharmaceutical sales.
• Many people have to pay higher premiums
The wider range of benefits covered by the Obamacare caused premiums to rise.
• Reduction of employee hours
Business with 50 or more full-time employees must offer insurance or make payments to cover healthcare expenses for
employees. By reducing hours, businesses are able to get by the 30-hour-per-week definition of a full-time employee.
• The individual mandate
You can be fined if you do not have health insurance.
IMPORTANCE OF OBAMACARE TO THE FILIPINOS
Filipino health-care professionals as well as BPO industry will benefit from America’s Affordable Care Act
 The Philippines has been America’s chief supplier of foreign health-care workers, mostly nurses.
 The ACA or the Obamacare is expected to stimulate America’s demand for Filipino nurses, physical and occupational
therapists, pharmacists, speech pathologists and other health-care workers.”
Development in the US economy are bound to have important effects around the world.
 To date, there is no evidence that the ACA has had a negative impact on economic growth or jobs or that its reforms have
undermined full-time employment—effects that the law’s opponents had warned about.
Controversies
Why do conservatives oppose the law?
The health law has been vigorously opposed by the Republican Party and by conservatives in the private sector who see it as
an inappropriate government intrusion into the massive healthcare industry and an affront to personal liberty.
Many people have to pay higher premiums
Insurance companies now provide a wider range of benefits and cover people with preexisting conditions. This has caused
premiums to rise for a lot of people who already had health insurance.
You can be fined if you don’t have insurance
The goal of Obamacare is for people to be insured year round. If you’re uninsured and don’t obtain an exemption, you must
pay a modest fine. Recent events have changed this fine, and beginning with the tax year 2019 it will be eliminated.
Taxes are going up as a result of the ACA
Several new taxes were passed into law to help pay for the ACA, including taxes on medical device and pharmaceutical sales.
Taxes were also increased for people with high incomes. Funding also comes from savings in Medicare payments.
It’s best to be prepared for enrollment day
The ACA website had a lot of technical problems when it was first launched. This made it difficult for people to enroll and
led to delays and lower-than-expected signups.
Businesses are cutting employee hours to avoid covering employees
Opponents of Obamacare claimed the legislation would destroy jobs. The number of full-time jobs has gone up in recent
years, but there are still reports of businesses cutting hours from employee schedules.
Looking ahead
The ACA is subject to changes every year. The legislation can be amended, and budget decisions can affect how it’s
implemented.

What is Welfare System?

-A social welfare system is a government program that provides assistance to individuals and families in need.

The history of public welfare in the United States has been one of continuing change and growth.
 1900’s local governments shared with private charitable organizations major responsibility for public
assistance or as it was often termed, “public relief.”
 1926, forty states had established some type of public relief program for mothers with dependent
children. A few states also provided cash assistance to needy elderly residents through old-age pensions.
The programs and the size of the benefits varied widely among the states.
  Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 (January 22, 1932).President Herbert Hoover- It
created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which released funds for public works projects across the
country.The Act was designed to be a temporary means of providing employment and all the positions
created in the navy yard to service the projects were therefore classified as temporary.
 Note: According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, "This was the government’s first major
involvement in the housing field. The RFC was authorized to make loans to private corporations providing
housing for low-income families. Also in 1932, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was established to make
advances on the security of home mortgages and establish a Home Loan Bank System.

“Its three major features are–

“First–through provision of $300 million of temporary loans by the Reconstruction Corporation to such States as
are absolutely unable to finance the relief of distress, we have a solid backlog of assurance that there need be no
hunger and cold in the United States. These loans are to be based upon absolute need and evidence of financial
exhaustion. I do not expect any State to resort to it except as a last extremity.

“Second–through the provision for $1,500 million of loans by the Reconstruction Corporation for reproductive
construction work of public character on terms which will be repaid, we should ultimately be able to find
employment for hundreds of thousands of people without drain on the taxpayer.

“Third–through the broadening of the powers of the Corporation in the character of loans it can make to assist
agriculture, we should materially improve the position of the farmer…”

 The Social Security Act of 1935 (August 14, 1935). - President Franklin Roosevelt. An act to
provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by
enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons,
dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the
administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to
raise revenue; and for other purposes.

An Executive Order was issued June 29, 1934 that delegated to five Cabinet officers the responsibility to
study methods of providing “security against the hazards and vicissitudes of life” with the primary purpose
of developing a workable social insurance system.

The law was a landmark piece of legislation that created, among other things, the basic framework that guided
the nation’s public welfare system for sixty years.

Note: consisted of 11 separate “titles” and it established three distinct types of programs designed to provide
economic protections to different populations in different ways: 1) a system of state
administered Unemployment Insurance programs designed to provide temporary financial assistance to able-
bodied workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own; 2) the Old Age and Survivors Insurance
Program?, a universal and contributory social insurance program for eligible wage-earners who retired or died,
leaving a spouse or family; and, 3) a system of state-federal public assistance programs for aged, blind, and
dependent children deemed unable to earn wages and therefore participate in the social insurance programs.

 TITLE I- GRANTS TO STATES FOR OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE

A State plan for old-age assistance must

(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by
them, be mandatory upon them;
(2) provide for financial participation by the State;
(3) either provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to administer the plan,
or provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to supervise the
administration of the plan;
(4) provide for granting to any individual, whose claim for old-age assistance is denied, an
opportunity for a fair hearing before such State agency;
(5) provide such methods of administration (other than those relating to selection, tenure of office,
and compensation of personnel) as are found by the Board to be necessary for the efficient operation
of the plan;
(6) provide that the State agency will make such reports, in such form and containing such
information, as the Board may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the
Board may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports;
and
(7) provide that, if the State or any of its political subdivisions collects from the estate of any recipient
of old-age assistance any amount with respect to old-age assistance furnished him under the plan,
one- half of the net amount so collected shall be promptly paid to the United States. Any payment so
made shall be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation for the purposes of this
title.

Requirement:(1) An age requirement of more than sixty-five years, except that the plan may impose,
effective until January 1, 1940, an age requirement of as much as seventy years; or
(2) Any residence requirement which excludes any resident of the State who has resided therein five
years during the nine years immediately preceding the application for old-age assistance and has
resided therein continuously for one year immediately preceding the application; or (3) Any
citizenship requirement which excludes any citizen of the United States.
TITLE II- FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS
SEC. 202. (a) Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with
respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942,
whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as
practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:
(1) If the total wages (as defined in section 210) determined by the Board to have been paid to him,
with respect to employment (as defined in section 210) after December 31, 1936, and before he
attained the age of sixty- five, were not more than $3,000, the old-age benefit shall be at a monthly
rate of one-half of 1 per centum of such total wages;
(2) If such total wages were more than $3,000, the old-age benefit shall be at a monthly rate equal to
the sum of the following:
(A) One-half of 1 per centum of $3,000; plus
(B) One-twelfth of 1 per centum of the amount by which such total wages exceeded $3,000 and did
not exceed $45,000; plus
(C) One-twenty-fourth of 1 per centum of the amount by which such total wages exceeded $45,000.
(b) In no case shall the monthly rate computed under subsection (a) exceed $85.
(c) If the Board finds at any time that more or less than the correct amount has theretofore been paid
to any individual under this section, then, under regulations made by the Board, proper adjustments
shall be made in connection with subsequent payments under this section to the same individual.
(d) Whenever the Board finds that any qualified individual has received wages with respect to regular
employment after he attained the age of sixty-five, the old-age benefit payable to such individual
shall be reduced, for each calendar month in any part of which such regular employment occurred, by
an amount equal to one month s benefit. Such reduction shall be made, under regulations prescribed
by the Board, by deductions from one or more payments of old-age benefit to such individual.

Requirements: (c) The term qualified individual means any individual with respect to whom it appears
to the satisfaction of the Board that-
(1) He is at least sixty-five years of age; and
(2) The total amount of wages paid to him, with respect to employment after December 31, 1936, and
before he attained the age of sixty-five, was not less than $2,000; and
(3) Wages were paid to him, with respect to employment on some five days after December 31, 1936,
and before he attained the age of sixty-five, each day being in a different calendar year.
TITLE III- GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION
 SECTION 301. For the purpose of assisting the States in the administration of their unemployment
compensation laws, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1936, the sum of $4,000,000, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $49,000,000, to be used as
hereinafter provided.

TITLE IV- GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN

 SECTION 401. For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as
practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy dependent children, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $24,750,000, and
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry
out the purposes of this title. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making
payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Board, State plans for aid to
dependent children.
Requirements: (b) The Board shall approve any plan which fulfills the conditions specified in
subsection (a) except that it shall not approve any plan which imposes as a condition of eligibility for
aid to dependent children, a residence requirement which denies aid with respect to any child
residing in the State
(1) who has resided in the State for one year immediately preceding the application for such aid or
(2) who was born within the State within one year immediately preceding the application, if its mother
has resided in the State for one year immediately preceding the birth.
TITLE V- GRANTS TO STATES FOR MATERNAL AND CHILD WELFARE
SECTION 501. For the purpose of enabling each State to extend and improve, as far as practicable
under the conditions in such State, services for promoting the health of mothers and children,
especially in rural areas and in areas suffering from severe economic distress, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30,
1936, the sum of $3,800,000. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making
payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Chief of the Children s Bureau,
State plans for such services.

PART 2-SERVICES FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN

SEC. 511. For the purpose of enabling each State to extend and improve (especially in rural areas and
in areas suffering from severe economic distress), as far as practicable under the conditions in such
State, services for locating crippled children and for providing medical, surgical, corrective, and other
services and care, and facilities for diagnosis, hospitalization, and aftercare, for children who are
crippled or who are suffering from conditions which lead to crippling, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of
$2,850,000. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States
which have submitted, and had approved by the Chief of the Children s Bureau, State plans for such
services.

PART 3- CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

SEC. 521. (a) For the purpose of enabling the United States, through the Children s Bureau, to
cooperate with State public-welfare agencies establishing, extending, and strengthening, especially in
predominantly rural areas, public-welfare services (hereinafter in this section referred to as child-
welfare services ) for the protection and care of homeless, dependent, and neglected children, and
children in danger of becoming delinquent, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year, beginning with the year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $1,500,000. 

PART 4- VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

SEC. 531. (a) In order to enable the United States to cooperate with the States and Hawaii in
extending and strengthening their programs of vocational rehabilitation of the physically disabled,
and to continue to carry out the provisions and purposes of the Act entitled An Act to provide for the
promotion of vocational rehabilitation of persons disabled in industry or otherwise and their return to
civil employment , approved June 2, 1920, as amended (U.S.C., title 29, ch. 4; U.S.C., Supp. VII title 29,
secs. 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, and 40), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1936, and June 30, 1937, the sum of $841,000 for each such fiscal year in addition to
the amount of the existing authorization, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $1,938,000. Of
the sums appropriated pursuant to such authorization for each fiscal year, $5,000 shall be
apportioned to the Territory of Hawaii and the remainder shall be apportioned among the several
States in the manner provided in such Act of June 2, 1920, as amended.
(b) For the administration of such Act of June 2, 1920, as amended, by the Federal agency authorized
to administer it, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal years ending June 30,
1936, and June 30, 1937, the sum of $22,000 for each such fiscal year in addition to the amount of the
existing authorization, and for each fiscal year thereafter the sum of $102,000.

PART 5- ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 541. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936,
the sum of $425,000, for all necessary expenses of the Children s Bureau in administering the
provisions of this title, except section 531.
(b) The Children s Bureau shall make such studies and investigations as will promote the efficient
administration of this title, except section 531.
(c) The Secretary of Labor shall include in his annual report to Congress a full account of the
administration of this title, except section 531.

TITLE VI- PUBLIC HEALTH WORK

SECTION 601. For the purpose of assisting States, counties, health districts, and other political
subdivisions of the States in establishing and maintaining adequate public-health services, including
the training of personnel for State and local health work, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30,1936, the sum of
$8,000,000 to be used as hereinafter provided.
TITLE VII- SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
SECTION 701. There is hereby established a Social Security Board (in this Act referred to as the Board )
to be composed of three members to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. During his term of membership on the Board , no member shall engage in any
other business, vocation, or employment. Not more than two of the members of the Board shall be
members of the same political party. Each member shall receive a salary at the rate of $10,000 a year
and shall hold office for a term of six years, except that
(1) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed, shall be appointed for the remainder of such term; and
(2) the terms of office of the members first taking office after the date of the enactment of this Act
shall expire, as designated by the President at the time of appointment, one at the end of two years,
one at the end of four years, and one at the end of six years, after the date of the enactment of this
Act. The President shall designate one of the members as the chairman of the Board.
TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT

INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES

SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of
every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811)
received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811)
after such date:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1937, 1938, and 1939, the rate shall be 1
per centum.
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1940, 1941, and 1942, the rate shall 1 « per
centum.
(3) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1943, 1944, and 1945, the rate shall be 2
per centum.
(4) With respect to employment during the calendar years 1946, 1947, and 1948, the rate shall be 2 «
per centum.
(5) With respect to employment after December 31, 1948, the rate shall be 3 per centum.

DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM WAGES

SEC. 802. (a) The tax imposed by section 801 shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by
deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid. Every employer required so to
deduct the tax is hereby made liable for the payment of such tax, and is hereby indemnified against
the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any such payment made by such employer.
(b) If more or less than the correct amount of tax imposed by section 801 is paid with respect to any
wage payment, then, under regulations made under this title, proper adjustments, with respect both
to the tax and the amount to be deducted, shall be made, without interest, in connection with
subsequent wage payments to the same individual by the same employer.
TITLE IX- TAX ON EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE
IMPOSITION OF TAX

SECTION 901. On and after January 1, 1936, every employer (as defined in section 907) shall pay for
each calendar year an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the
following percentages of the total wages (as defined in section 907) payable by him (regardless of the
time of payment) with respect to employment (as defined in section 907) during such calendar year:
(1) With respect to employment during the calendar year 1936 the rate shall be 1 per centum;
(2) With respect to employment during the calendar year 1937 the rate shall be 2 per centum;
(3) With respect to employment after December 31, 1937, the rate shall be 3 per centum.

CREDIT AGAINST TAX

SEC. 902. The taxpayer may credit against the tax imposed by section 901 the amount of
contributions, with respect to employment during the taxable year, paid by him (before the date of
filing of his return for the taxable year) into an unemployment fund under a State law. The total credit
allowed to a taxpayer under this section for all contributions paid into unemployment funds with
respect to employment during such taxable year shall not exceed 90 per centum of the tax against
which it is credited, and credit shall be allowed only for contributions made under the laws of States
certified for the taxable year as provided in section 903.

TITLE X- GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID TO THE BLIND

SECTION 1001. For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as
practicable under the conditions in such State, to needy individuals who are blind, there is hereby
authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936, the sum of $3,000,000, and
there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year thereafter a sum sufficient to carry
out the purposes of this title. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making
payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Social Security Board, State plans
for aid to the blind.

STATE PLANS FOR AID TO THE BLIND

SEC. 1002. (a) A State plan for aid to the blind must
(1) provide that it shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by
them, be mandatory upon them;
(2) provide for financial participation by the State;
(3) either provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to administer the plan,
or provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to supervise the
administration of the plan;
(4) provide for granting to any individual, whose claim for aid is denied, an oppor- tunity for a fair
hearing before such State agency;
(5) provide such methods of administration (other than those relating to selection, tenure of office,
and compensation of personnel) as are found by the Board to be necessary for the efficient operation
of the plan;
(6) provide that the State agency will make such reports, in such form and containing such
information, as the Board may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the
Board may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports;
and
(7) provide that no aid will be furnished any individual under the plan with respect to any period with
respect to which he is receiving old-age assistance under the State plan approved under section 2 of
this Act.

Requirements: (b) The Board shall approve any plan which fulfills the conditions specified in
subsection (a), except that it shall not approve any plan which imposes, as a condition of eligibility for
aid to the blind under the plan-
(1) Any residence requirement which excludes any resident of the State who has resided therein five
years during the nine years immediately preceding the application for aid and has resided therein
continuously for one year immediately preceding the application or
(2) Any citizenship requirement which excludes any citizen of the United States.

Importance of Welfare System

To USA:

1. Ensures quality of life regardless of background.

 Inequalities in the society are minimized as it assist citizens who are not able to support
themselves.

2. Reduces Poverty and raises income.

 Allows people to join the labor force and homelessness decreased among poor families

3. Creates a sense of socio-economic security

 Benefits are given as a headstart for those who are disadvantaged – gives hope to the
marginalized

To The World:

1. Combats global inequities and insecurities.

2. Indicates the importance of humanity.

3. Attracts investments: fosters a stable society.

4. Reduces Extreme poverty across the globe.

Why does the world need welfare system?

 OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) asserted that welfare
spending reduces the ever expanding global wealth gap.
 It is the ultimate expression of nation-state under globalization, and as long as there are
inequalities across the world in terms of wealth distribution and life changes, the necessity for
a string social safety net is needed. In order to put an end to Extreme Poverty across the
globe, welfare systems should be promoted.

To the Philippines:

Filipinos Demand the following:

 Healthcare for the sick

 Support for university students
 Assistance for the aged
 Provision of jobs
 Assistance to industry
 Socialized housing
 Equality between men and women
 Unemployment assistance.

 Philippines is bound to a commitment with US to adapt policies that will promote an inclusive
development in the country – improvement of health services, education and providing subsides.

Programs by the DSWD

  4P’s – invests in health and education of poor families.
 Sustainable Livelihood Programs – improves socio-economic status through 2 tracks.
 Supplemental Feeding Programs – provision o food for children to lessen cases of
malnourishment.
 PAMANA – access of poor communities to basic social services.

Pros and cons of US welfare system for Filipino-Americans residents

Filipino Americans: Demographics, Health, and Social Welfare

Filipinos constitute the second-largest Asian group, and the second-fastest-growing population, in the
United States. In 2010, the U.S. Census reported 3.4 million Filipino Americans, including part-Filipino,
multiracial Americans. Between 2000 and 2010, the Filipino population increased by 44.5%, from 2.4 million to
3.4 million. Regionally, over 65% of U.S. Filipinos live in the West, 16.3% in the South, 8.4% in the Midwest,
and 9.7% in the Northeast. In 10 out of 13 western states, Filipino Americans are the largest group of Asian
Americans: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and
Wyoming

The 2000 U.S. Census data reports only 7 percent of Filipino Americans are not proficient in English; 13.1
percent have less than a high school education; 42.8 percent obtained a college degree; 8.5 percent an
advanced degree; 29.7 percent are in high skill occupations; 63.7 percent are married; 67.6 percent are
homeowners; the median personal income is $23,000 and the median family income is $65,440; 6.9 percent
are living in poverty, and 1.6 percent receive public assistance. Among Asian American-owned businesses in
the nation, Filipinos owned 163,217 firms (10.5 percent of all Asian-owned firms) with receipts of $20.2 billion
.

Nearly one out of four Filipino families have three or more working members. More than a fifth of Filipinos in
the United States are limited in English proficiency. A majority of Filipino seniors (51%) experience limited
English proficiency. Among Asian American–owned businesses in the nation, 9% are Filipino-owned,
according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1997 Survey of Minority-Owned Business Enterprises.

While Filipinos historically exhibited indomitable spirit, resourcefulness, and resilience in the face of continuous
foreign subjugation, the impact of such long-term cultural and political domination on well-being is not well
understood. A small but growing body of Filipino American–focused health and mental health research
provides evidence of significant concern in connection with their overall welfare. Discussion and
concern about who is Filipino and the “identity crisis” among Filipinos is thought to be linked to a lack of self-
respect, the increase in mixed-race Filipinos, and the sought-after acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexuals in
the Filipino community.

Studies of Asian Americans, which include Filipinos, indicate utilization of health-care services at
approximately one-third the rate of what would be expected from a population their size across a
variety of settings: in-patient services, outpatient services, emergency room and case management services
child welfare and juvenile services, and the general community. The underutilization of services was not
found to be attributable to racial differences in rates of psychopathology. The large discrepancy
between levels of distress and service use among Asian Americans may, therefore, indicate unmet health
and mental health needs.

Despite ranking as the second-largest ethnic group in the United States, Filipino Americans seek mental
health services at a much lower rate than other Asian American groups. Utilizing data from the Filipino
American Community Epidemiological Study (FACES), researchers found that 75% of Filipino Americans
never used any type of mental health service, and 17% sought sole help from friends, relatives, priests,
ministers, herbalists, spiritualists, or fortune tellers. Research has also revealed that Filipino Americans
experience psychological distress and mental health problems at an equal or greater rate than other
Asian Americans or other racial groups, and that 98–99% report experiencing daily and lifetime racism.
The research suggests that many Filipino Americans may be experiencing emotional distress; however, they
rarely utilize services despite low rates of poverty, higher levels of income, the second-highest English
proficiency rate among Asian Americans, and familiarity with the American culture as a result of
American colonization.

Education, Higher Education, Income, Poverty, and Housing

Nationally, the numbers of Filipinos attending school approximate the attendance percentages of the general U.S.
population: in preschool or nursery school, attendance is 5.8% for Filipino Americans versus 6.2% for the general
population; in kindergarten, it is 4.9% for Filipino Americans versus 5.1% for the general population; in
elementary school, it is 38.2% for Filipino Americans versus 40.8% for the general population; and in high school,
it is 20.5% for Filipino Americans versus 22.1% for the general population (Maramba & Bonus, 2013).

Filipino American enrolment in higher education is at 30.6% in comparison to the national figure, 25.8%. The
number of Filipino Americans who earn a bachelor’s degree is reportedly twice as high as the national average
(37.2% for Filipino Americans vs. 17.1% nationally). These statistics, however, do not reflect degrees earned overseas,
nor do they equate to employment in the United States . Historically, Filipinos in the United States faced institutional
barriers entering higher education and therefore did not continue their education beyond high school. More
recently, reports indicate, Filipino Americans have among the highest rates of educational attainment, with 47.9%
over the age of 25 having a bachelor’s degree. The same 2007 Census Bureau study, labeled the American
Community Survey (ACS), found that 39.7% of the Filipinos were in management, professional, and related
occupations; the median Filipino household income in 2004 was $65,700; and poverty rates among this group were
5.2% for all ages.

Literature and research on housing and home ownership among Filipinos is limited. In 2005, Filipino home
ownership in Hawaii was nearly 68%, higher than the general population (57%), and rental participation was at
32%. According to a study by the Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA) and UCLA Asian American
Studies Center (UCLA AASC), 64% of U.S. Filipinos own their home), and 37.5% live in rentals. A study of Filipino
home ownership in Daly City, California, found that Filipinos learn to negotiate and navigate in communities
where they are viewed as outsiders. The comparatively high rate of home ownership among Filipinos, and their
tendency to live in suburbs, regardless of whether they can truly afford to do so, can be partly understood as a strategy
for creating capital and assimilating within the dominant fabric of American culture.

https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-852?
rskey=pv0tbo&result=8

Pros and cons of US welfare system for Americans residents

A.
B. List of the Advantages of Welfare

1. Welfare programs help people during their greatest time of need.

Most welfare programs are not designed to be a long-term income solution. The idea of a “welfare queen” just
doesn’t exist in reality. You get enough to meet your basic needs and nothing more. Even though some people
might waste their funds on steak and lobster instead of purchasing enough food to get through the entire
month, there is a measure of responsibility that some individuals need to learn.

Welfare also provides a safety net to individuals with disabilities that might prevent them from working in a
traditional capacity.

2. There are usually caps placed on welfare benefits.

One of the easiest ways to prevent fraud or long-term benefit acquisition is to place a cap on how many
benefits an individual or household can receive during the year. Some states have this policy for TANF benefits
where additional assistance isn’t given to children who are conceived and born to parents already in the
program. As of April 2019, there were still 13 states where this policy is in effect.

Massachusetts households that consist of a single parent with one child on TANF could receive a maximum of
$478 per month. If there are two children being cared for in this family, then an extra $100 becomes available.

3. Welfare programs can reduce criminal activities in low-income areas.

Even though the general public associates welfare with crime-ridden, low-income neighborhoods, the opposite
impact occurs in the United States. In a 2011 study of a dozen significant cities in the United States, there was
a direct correlation to the cycle of welfare payments and the commission of crime. The lowest levels of conflict
occurred in each city when families received access to their next round of benefits. This information presents
the conclusion that most criminal activities occur because of financial need.

4. More children receive help through welfare than any other demographic.
The majority of individuals who receive welfare benefits through the six primary programs offered in the United
States are children. Half of the total caseload in any given month at the state and national level involves cases
that only involve kids. About 75% of all TANF applications include families that have at least one child. Despite
all of this need, the average payment received from the program was just over $300 per month.

Most of the families with children who receive TANF in the United States will receive SNAP benefits too. A few
receive subsidized childcare and housing while working full time through all of these challenges.

5. Most welfare programs provide help to the people who need it the most.
One of the most famous cases of welfare fraud occurred in 2017 when a dozen people were charged with
bilking a food stamp program out of $20 million. This enterprise involved a series of convenience stores in
Florida that were illegally exchanging benefits for cash at a lower value, and then redeeming the items
personally. When there isn’t extensive oversight over a financial program, then the risk of abuse rises. That’s
not the fault of the poor households who need financial help. It’s an issue at the political level.

6. Welfare benefits supplement the incomes of working parents.

Working parents often receive welfare benefits as a way to help supplement their income. Almost 30% of low-
wage employees in the United States are single parents, working in that job because of the schedule flexibility
it offers them to manage their family.
Individuals must often pass a drug test to become part of this demographic. They might be required to have
their credit scores at a certain level to qualify for benefits, with employment references are often mandatory.
Specific criminal offenses can even directly disqualify someone receiving benefits. Those who eventually make
it through the application process to receive these benefits are netting about $9 per hour.

7. Welfare programs don’t give benefits to everyone.

Illegal immigrants and undocumented workers do not receive welfare benefits unless exceptional
circumstances apply. A work visa is necessary as evidence for a person’s ability to legally work in the United
States to qualify for any program benefits.

If a legal worker loses their job, cannot find one, or cannot maintain a specific standard of living, then their
permission to stay in the United States gets revoked. Some nations take this provision a step further by
requiring anyone who receives welfare benefits to be a naturalized citizen.

8. It allows a family to survive devastating financial circumstances if they occur.

We purchase insurance to cover our losses in a variety of ways. Most people have policies for their cars,
home, and possessions. Life insurance helps to guard against an unexpected loss of income. That’s what
welfare programs are too – an insurance policy that allows people to keep going despite sometimes
extraordinary circumstances.

Capitalist societies can force people out of work even when they have done nothing wrong. That’s why
governments often see the use of a welfare program as a form of socioeconomic insurance. Even though
some people receive benefits for free, the money from those benefits still gives the local economy a boost.

9. The people who receive welfare benefits can see an improvement in their health.
There is a direct relationship between an individual’s wellness and their ability to earn an income. Those who
don’t have employment prospects or access to healthcare have a shorter lifespan compared to those who have
at least one of these options. Many welfare programs require specific healthcare measurements as part of the
qualification process to have benefits given to families.

WIC, for example, requires children to have blood tests administered by a nurse in the program to ensure they
are receiving the correct nutritional content in their meals. Failing to use the funds given in appropriate ways
will reduce the amount offered or disqualify the family from the program.

10. There is a reduction in poverty within a community because of the presence of welfare.
The number of people living in poverty above the age of 65 in the United States fell by five percentage points,
from 14% to 9%, from 1992 to 2016. The overall poverty rate for Americans is hovering around 10% as well.
Some states, such as Minnesota, are seeing even lower rates – in the range of 5% for some population
grounds.

That’s why an argument against offering welfare benefits impacts children more than anyone else. By closing
income gaps for parents, whether they work or not, it is easier for the next generation to have successful
learning opportunities.

C. List of the Disadvantages of Welfare

1. Welfare programs do not offer enough money to make a significant difference.

The federal income requirement for welfare benefits in the United States was to earn less than $12,140 in
2018. Families could then add another $4,320 for each additional person in the home. This combination of
family size and income becomes a problem for those who legitimately need this form of help. If there is a two-
parent, four child household where only one parent works, a job that pays less than $17 per hour could
disqualify the family for any benefits.

That means families are forced to look for other community resources, such as a food bank if they are unable
to make ends meet.

2. People who take welfare benefits face numerous negative societal reactions.
The families who accept welfare benefits are often treated as being a subordinate part of society. Individuals in
this situation are viewed as being apathetic, unwilling to find employment, and untrustworthy. Several state
governments have looked at stiffening the requirements to receive welfare benefits to reduce these stigmas.

Work or training qualifications may apply before any benefits go toward the family in need. Some states have
started mandating drug testing as part of the welfare system. These actions intend to help individuals to lift
themselves out of poverty, but it also causes those who receive benefits to be treated as secondary citizens.

3. Welfare program supports are often inconsistent in their application.

States are permitted to set many of their own rules on who receives benefits thanks to the provisions of federal
block funding. This disadvantage means that a family might qualify for welfare benefits in one state, but not in
another one. It is an issue that can restrict access to welfare because some households might think they don’t
qualify for benefits. Why bother to submit an application if you expect a rejection?

This inconsistency also means that some states might not offer access to specific benefits and programs.
When the Medicaid expansion was permitted with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), 18
states opted against providing any extra services.

4. Welfare doesn’t make an effort to address the issue of poverty.

Welfare programs are like an economic Band-Aid that households can use to stay afloat in challenging
economic times. What these efforts are unable to provide is an opportunity to address the root causes of
poverty in the first place. There are several reasons why someone might lose their job today. Artificial
intelligence, automation, downsizing, and other economic forces could cause a 50% reduction in employment
in today’s industries over the next decade.

That’s why 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang suggests that a universal basic income is a way to
counter the future economic issues we could encounter. The Freedom Dividend he proposes a guaranteed
amount, regardless of work status, to each adult in the United States.

5. Welfare programs can create patterns of dependence for some families.

Supporters of welfare would suggest that it is the responsibility of a developed society to take care of the
people who are unable to do so on their own. The problem with this approach is that when someone is no
longer responsible for their personal care, there is no longer a need to improve their circumstances. The
benefits that come from these safety net programs can create dependencies for some families because there’s
no incentive to learn a new skill. That’s why there are program caps paid to households, especially if there are
no children in the family unit.

The goal of welfare programs should be to remove as many people over time as possible because their
standard of living increases. That’s why the overall benefit amount people receive only takes care of their most
basic needs – and sometimes it doesn’t even manage to accomplish that outcome.

6. The cost of oversight for these programs is an expense we don’t often budget.
Most countries see a welfare fraud rate of 1% or less. That’s five percentage points lower than what the
average business expects to see over a year. When audits of the Social Security program went through in
2012, the oversight committee found that 25% of payments were going to people where the evidence of need
was contradictory, insufficient, or incomplete. Since the private sector has more ways to push for accountability
than the government, one of the proposed ways is to take these programs toward privatization.

7. It teaches children to rely on government supports instead of their ingenuity.

It is not unusual for the cycle of welfare reliance to continue happening across multiple generations. Kids that
grow up in a household where benefits are a regular part of the financial situation are more likely to find
themselves relying on these funds as an adult. There are even 11 states where these programs can pay some
qualifying families more than what the salary for a teacher would be in that community.

As of 2018, recipients in Hawaii under the right set of circumstances can qualify for almost $50,000 per year
while making a minimal commitment to work.

8. Applications are necessary to access welfare program benefits.

Only 2 out of every 5 qualifying families accesses welfare benefits. The reason why the figure has dropped by
50% over the past 20 years is that the necessary interactions to obtain the help needed can be prolonged,
stigmatizing, and a lot of work to complete. Since there are higher levels of bureaucracy involved in the
process, the work naturally limits the people who’d apply. This figure remains consistent at local, state, and
national levels of oversight.

9. The cost of welfare programs is massive.

The United States spends over $1 trillion each year to support every means-tested welfare program currently
operating. Almost half of those costs go toward providing healthcare-related services. That means $400 billion
goes toward housing assistance, food needs, and direct monetary assistance. That’s 10 times the amount that
Oxfam estimates would be needed to cure world hunger, which means the level of inefficiency in the system
could be massive. Americans spend more on these benefits than what the average budget is for almost every
other country in the world.

Even though the average daily benefit for a welfare program is only $25, that figure places someone in poverty
in the United States in the upper-fifth of global income.

10. It goes against the principles of capitalism.

There is a specific need for personal responsibility in society. Even though we can help one another when
there are challenging circumstances, individuals need to have some level of responsibility for their own well-
being. Since over 40% of families have no savings and are living paycheck-to-paycheck, there is almost no
way for the average person to recover from an unexpected expense in American society today. Under the
principles of capitalism, you’re either productive and contribute or you do not and get left behind.
Instead of having the government interfere with the national economic system, the households that need help
could access local resources to find the benefits they need.

https://futureofworking.com/6-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-welfare/ \

Updates on US Welfare System and Current Situation During Pandemic  

Millions of Americans have moved off assistance  
President Trump likes to claim credit for the number of Americas who have stopped receiving food
stamps since he entered office ,democrats say those figures only show  President Trump has
pushed struggling Americans off public assistance by pressing the restrict eligibility for the
supplemental nutrition assistance program, Medicaid and other programs. For now the
evidence supports President Trump’s contention that an improving economy is more responsible for
falling food stamps rolls rather than President Trump’s attempts to limit access. However Trump’s
initiatives are poised to deny assistance to millions of Americans who would previously have been
eligible  
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzjXpYE2R9M (issues on food stamps -Trump admin)  
 
 
Improving employment opportunities and pay increases have made millions of workers ineligible for
food stamps because they now earn too much money, wage growth is accelerating for the lowest
paid workers in the economy and the share of the population working or looking for work is rising  
 
Restrict eligibility for safety-net benefits  
Allowing states to add work work requirement to Medicaid and threatening to deny citizenship to legal
immigrant who enroll in public assistance  
Example : The Department of Agriculture proposed 3 rules that tighten eligibility and work
requirements for food stamps (proposal was in effect last April 2018) making it more difficult  for
states to waive certain work requirements ( 700,000 people could lose their food assistance
because of the rule) the other 2 rules are still pending 
“A commitment to the transformative power of work is why I signed an Executive Order
instructing agencies to reduce dependence on welfare programs by encouraging
work” President Trump wrote in the introduction to the annual Economic Report of the President 
 
Trump has also taken credit for the declines in the number of Americans taking benefits from
programs his administration collectively calls “welfare “ including Medicaid, the Children’s health
insurance program and temporary assistance for needy families, which provide health coverage and
cash assistance to low income families. Some of those declines are, like with food stamps, linked
to economic improvements others are result of policy changes.  
Other declines appear to be at least party the result of President Trump’s policies,his efforts to deny
green cards and a path to citizenship for legal immigrants who are likely to use Medicaid, food stamps
and housing voucher appear to be driving immigrants to stop using safety-net programs for which
they are eligible  
 
Declines in Medicaid enrollment reflect Trump’s administration’s broader attempts to undermine the
Affordable Care Act.the administration’s  approval of state -imposed work requirement for Medicaid
led to large number of people losing health coverage.  
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/business/trump-welfare-poverty.html  
 
Cuts to low-income assistance programs in President Trumps 2020 Budget 
 Reaffirms administration support for repealing the Affordable Care Act 
Which would cause millions of people to lose health coverage, increase health care
cost most especially  to those don’t meet a work requirement when Medicaid is implemented
nationwide.  
  Proposes to cut SNAP( formerly food stamps ) by 220 billion USD about 30% over the
next 10 years  
The budget would dramatically restructure how SNAP benefits are delivered, taking away food
choices and posing new food hurdles for almost 90% of SNAP participants, other benefits and
eligibility cuts would cause at least 4 million people to lose SNAP benefits  altogether, the cuts
would affect every category of SNAP participant including the unemployed, the
elderly individuals with disabilities and low income working families with children  
 Proposes to cut funding in 2020 for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development by 9.7 billion USD or 18 percent, including significant cuts in rental
assistance for low income households  
This includes cutting funding to operate, maintain, and repair public housing by 60% and
eliminating housing choice voucher for 140,000 households, it would also re-propose a policy
that would raise rents by an average of 44 % on 4 million low income households now
 receiving assistance and take benefits away from people Judge not to have met a work
requirement  
 Calls for cutting funding for non -defense  discretionary programs by 54 billion USD or a
9% (not accounting for inflation)  in 2020, relative to the 2019 level 
By 2029 funding for non-defense discretionary programs would be 40% below 2019 levels,
after taking inflation into account ,these cuts would affect a host of important programs,
including job training and education, the budget also calls for eliminating a low income home
energy assistance program (LHIEAP) entirely  
 
If enacted, these proposals and other in the budget would sharply increase the number of
people who lack health coverage while increasing poverty, widening income and racial
disparities and driving up number of households that struggle to afford the basics  
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/cuts-to-low-income-assistance-programs-in-president-
trumps-2020-budget-are 
 
During the Pandemic  
Disaster financial assistance with food, housing and bills 
1. Corona virus stimulus checks for individuals  
2. Food programs ease rules for corona virus pandemic  
3. Temporary mortgage relief due to corona virus pandemic  
4. Temporary rental relief for many affected by the corona virus pandemic  
 
Corona virus stimulus checks for individuals  
The internal revenue service (IRS) is issuing one time stimulus checks for many individuals, these
payments are authorized under Coronavirus Aid, Reliefs and Economic Security (CARES) act.
Signed into law last March 27 2020 
IRS has been sending out payments by direct deposit and paper check  
Some people who are not required to file a tax return must provide basic information to the IRS  to get
their check these include very low income workers and some veterans  
 
Food programs ease rules for corona virus pandemic  
Easier time getting food through government meal programs during the coronavirus emergency.  
 Food stamp (SNAP)  recipients may receive supplemental funding  
 Parents can pick up school meals for their kids to eat at home  
 People can enroll in food programs remotely rather than in person, this applies to programs for
pregnant women, families, seniors and people with disabilities  
 
 
Temporary mortgage relief due to coronavirus pandemic 
In response to coronavirus pandemic under the CARES Act the owners of single family homes with
federally -backed mortgages can get 2 types of financial help  
Eviction and foreclosure moratorium  
Went effect on March 18 2020 has been extended until August 31 2020 during that time home
owners 
 Will not be charged late fees 
 Will not be evicted from their homes 
 Lenders will not initiate foreclosure proceedings and will suspend foreclosure proceedings
already in process  
Mortgage forbearance  
Federally -backed home loans can get 6 months of mortgage help.federal housing administration
reverse mortgages are eligible too.  
If you’re having trouble making payments because of the coronavirus pandemic 
 Defer or reduce payments for 6 months  
 Give another 6 months of mortgage relief at your request  
 Make options for how you can make up the deferred or reduced payments, they will
discuss these options with you at the end of your forbearance period.  
 
Temporary rental relief for many affected by the coronavirus pandemic  
An eviction moratorium ends on July 24 2020 
 Must be given a 30 day notice to move out 
 Can not be charged late fees or penalties for rent owned from March 27 to July 24 
 May be able to avoid eviction if you enter into a repayment agreement with your landlord  
 
https://www.usa.gov/disaster-help-food-housing-bills 
 
Although many issues in US welfare system has been criticized, responses to Covid-19 have
exposed critical gaps in the American social safety net highlighting how man around the country lack
access to vital services, from health insurance and sick leave to childcare  
 27 million Americans do not have any kind of health insurance  
 25% of the population delays medical treatment due to budgetary constraints  
 The precarious state of American health care might worsen the outbreak  
Family first Coronavirus response act promises to alleviate these mounting issues by allocating
more government money to public welfare programs which includes state expanding
unemployment insurance, food Stamp eligibility, paid sick leave, Medicaid and free medical
test but public health experts worry about the effectiveness of these measures especially as the
paid leave and food aid policies leave out large segments of the population, the current pandemic
provides a unique opportunity to reflect on the future of the US social welfare programs especially
access to health care and protection of workers  
https://berkeleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/religion-and-the-covid-19-pandemic-social-welfare 
Extreme poverty versus middle class welfare.
The myriad of welfare programs too often miss those in extreme poverty. Extreme poverty is defined as able to individuals
and families at less than half the poverty threshold. The poorest Americans are often the least navigate the complex welfare
system and many simply can’t find their way.
Others have alcohol or drug addiction which the uncoordinated welfare system inadequately addresses. That is why there are
so many homeless on the street existing outside the safety net that was built to protect them.
Complexity, of multiple programs and "red tape" versus simplified system.
The welfare system was never created as a single system like Medicare or Social Security but instead as independent programs
addressing a certain need. The result is a very bureaucratic system that is hard to use. The welfare system is made up of 13
large programs, many with multiple facets or stand-alone programs beneath them.
1. Refundable Tax Credits – Two tax credit programs are administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to
distribute money to low-income Americans. The tax credits include a “refundable” portion which is paid to
individuals and families that owe no income tax for the year. Therefore, this portion of the tax credits act as “negative
income tax”. The two programs are the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Child Tax Credit.
2. SNAP – This is a food program for low-income individuals and families. SNAP used to be called the food stamp
program and stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is run by the USDA (United States Department
of Agriculture). Participants receive a debit card which is accepted in most grocery stories for the purchase of food.
3. Housing Assistance – Various housing programs are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) including rental assistance, public housing and various community development grants.
4. SSI – This is a program to pay cash to low-income individuals over 65 years of age or under 65 if the individual is blind
or disabled. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income and is administered by the Social Security Administration.
5. Pell Grants – This is a grant program administered by the Department of Education to distribute up to $5,550 to
students from low-income households to promote postsecondary education (colleges and trade schools).
6. TANF -This is a combined federal and state program that pays cash to low-income households with the goal of moving
individuals from welfare to work. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and is administered by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
7. Child Nutrition – These are food programs administered by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)
which include school lunch, breakfast and after school programs. They target children from low-income households
and provide free or reduced price meals.
8. Head Start– This is a pre-school program available to kids from low-income families. It is administered by HHS (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services).
9. Job Training Programs – These are a myriad of training programs administered by the Department of Labor (DOL)
to provide job training, displacement and employment services generally targeting low-income Americans.
10. WIC -This is a program to provide Healthy food to pregnant women and children up to five years of age. WIC stands
for Women, Infants and Children and is available to low-income households. More.
11. Child Care – This is a block grant program to states and local public and private agencies who administer child care
programs to low-income families. It is administered by HHS. More
12. LIHEAP – This is a program to aid low-income households that pay a high proportion of household income for home
energy, either heating or cooling a residential dwelling. LIHEAP stands for Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program and is administered by HHS.
13. Lifeline (Obama Phone) – This is a program to provide discounted phone service, including cell phones, to low-
income individuals. The program is administered by the Federal Communications Commission.

The 13 programs are generally run independently from one another and are managed by 8 large agencies in Washington that
generally don’t interface with one another. Most of the 13 programs have unique qualification standards. They have separate
forms, rules, compliance, audits, etc. Some work in conjunction with state or local programs and some are run completely
independently
Consistent treatment of all low-income individuals in qualification, delivery and benefits.
The 13 welfare programs have their own unique income qualification standards. Several of the programs phase out at around
the poverty threshold where others are phased out at almost two times the threshold or greater. The result is an overall
inconsistent definition of those in need and is thus unfair. In addition, many programs fill up and become unavailable or are
not offered in certain locations. There is no coordination or cap on how many benefits a welfare recipient can receive and the
result is that some people get many benefits and others very few. Some are lifted way above the poverty threshold and others
remain in poverty
“Make Work Pay” so that welfare encourages work.
Today’s welfare system of independent programs discourages work because at certain income levels benefit loss is greater
than additional income earned. Many of the individual welfare programs, like SNAP, are correctly indexed to a participant’s
income whereby work and additional wages are encouraged. For example, benefits are lowered $.50 for each $1.00 in
additional income a participant earns. However, when benefits are examined in whole across the entire welfare system, this is
not the case, because the overall welfare system is not coordinated.
Marriage Penalty inherent in the welfare system.
Today’s welfare system often discourages marriage because a disproportionate loss in benefits occurs when two people marry.
For example a single mom with a minimum wage job could lose all of her benefits is she marries a man earning $20,000 a year.
Often the decision is made by the mom to just live with the man and keep the benefits.
Social Security
 American social welfare, thanks to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Social Security Act of 1935, is furthered
currently by two major categories of cash support programs: social insurances and public assistance.
 Social insurances are based on the prior earnings and payroll contributions of an individual, while public assistance,
commonly known as “welfare,” is based on the financial need of an individual.
 The primary social insurance programs today in America are Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance,
Unemployment Insurance, and Workers Compensation.
 Social security, like other social insurances, is an example of a “universal” program, because American citizens are
entitled to participate in the program as a social right.
 To receive benefits, a person must contribute payroll taxes during their working years. Those individuals contributing
payroll taxes for a minimum of 10 years (i.e. 40 quarters in social security eligibility terms) are covered permanently
under the program. Individual benefit levels are determined by the level of covered earnings (i.e., how much money
paid in) and the age of retirement.

Unemployment Insurance
 Funding for unemployment insurance is derived from an employer payroll tax.
 About 85% of the total American labor force is covered by unemployment insurance. Farmers, domestic workers, and
self-employed workers are not eligible for unemployment benefits. In addition, few of the poor receive unemployment
insurance.
 The poor can be excluded from benefits for several reasons.
1. If he has worked less than two of four quarters in the qualifying year.
2. If he was terminated from a job for misconduct or has quit voluntarily.

Workers’ Compensation
 The program provides victims of work-related injuries with cash, medical care, and to a limited extent, rehabilitation
services. It also compensates survivors if an injury is fatal. Like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation
does not cover all workers.
 Farm and domestic workers are not covered in many states.
 Most states only pay benefits for illnesses that appear within “several” years after the worker leaves a company. In
other words, the worker has a relatively short amount of time to prove their case.

Poverty and Social Services

 There are currently more than 37 million Americans living in poverty. Although the percentage of poor Americans is,
relative to the country's population, low historically, the actual number of impoverished U.S. residents has increased
since 2000, when the figure was 31 million.
 Approximately 5 million Americans are homeless, while about 43 million, including roughly 7 million children, are
without health insurance. Additionally, due to the current economic downturn, hundreds of thousands of Americans
are losing their jobs each month and, thus, their main source of income.
 Many of the social programs in the U.S. today—including Social Security and unemployment benefits—were initiated
in the 1930s, during a decade-long economic crisis known as the Great Depression. During that period, jobs were very
difficult to obtain, and about a quarter of Americans were unemployed.
 To combat the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1933-45) instituted a variety of social programs,
collectively known as the New Deal, designed to put Americans back to work and to ease the suffering caused by the
Depression.
 By the end of the 20th century, however, concerns that the government had become too intrusive in the lives of
Americans led to a scaling back of federal programs, especially those intended to assist the poor. Indeed, the so-called
Reagan revolution, promoted in the 1980s by the administration of President Ronald Reagan (R, 1981-89),
emphasized scaling back the pervasiveness of "big government."
 In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton (D, 1993-2001) further altered the way the government dealt with the poor by
signing a law that reshaped the federal welfare program, replacing financial assistance for low- or no-income families
with incentives for welfare recipients to return to the workforce.
 President Obama (D) has promoted a large role for the government in battling the recession and providing a social
safety net for the poor; indeed, he signed legislation during his first 100 days in office that significantly expands
unemployment benefits for laid-off workers and funds a series of construction projects to create jobs aimed at
strengthening the U.S. infrastructure.

Why Welfare needs Reform

 Welfare programs in the U.S. regularly fall short of their purported goals. These failures should concern individuals
that care about effective institutions, poverty reduction and good governance. Political interest groups often ignore
welfare’s existing problems largely to preserve coalitions and signal their ardent commitment to redistributive policy.
 This is short‐sighted. A variety of welfare programs suffer major losses due to structural flaws and mismanagement
on a recurring basis. And despite what advocates of welfare programs say, these problems are well ‐documented by
objective sources, not some figment of a powerful imagination or extreme ideology.

US Welfare System under Trump

1. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - The number of Americans getting food stamp assistance
grew during the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and after, as the stimulus legislation increased benefit levels.
Enrollment peaked in December 2012, when 47.8 million individuals participated in the program. But as the economy
improved, that figure fell.
  By the time former President Barack Obama left office, the monthly number of people enrolled in SNAP had
dropped by 5 million from the December 2012 peak to January 2017, a bit more than four years. In nearly
three years under Trump — 34 months, given the most recent USDA data — the enrollment has declined by
another 5.2 million.
2. Mediaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)- Medicaid and CHIP enrollment has declined by 3.9
million from Jan. 2017 to Nov. 2019 (the most recent preliminary figures available). But it’s not possible to simply add
that figure to the decline in SNAP to get the number of “people” who moved off of these programs. There’s substantial
overlap in the two programs.
 “Experiences in some states suggest that some eligible people may be losing coverage due to difficulties
completing processes or providing information to maintain coverage, for example, if they do not receive or have
difficulty understanding notices or information requests from the state. The administration has reduced funds to
support outreach and enrollment assistance, which is often an important for getting and keeping eligible families
enrolled in coverage. Moreover, a growing body of research indicates that the shifting immigration policy
environment, including recent changes to public charge policy, may be deterring some families from enrolling
themselves or their children in coverage or continuing coverage at renewal.”
3. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - The cash-assistance program typically considered “welfare” —
has declined by 825,145 from January 2017 to June 2019, the most recent figures available. That includes enrollment
in the State Supplemental Program, state cash-assistance that’s based on Supplemental Security Income eligibility.

RACISM AND THE RESPONSE OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

RACE:
The idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences.
RACISM:
A system of social structures that provides or denies access, safety, resources and power based on race categories and produces race-
based inequities.
DIFFERENT KINDS/ FORMS OF RACISM
Individual or Internalized Racism. This is racism that exists within individuals. It is when one holds negative ideas about his/her
own culture, even if unknowingly. Xenophobic feelings or one’s internalized sense of oppression/privilege are two examples of
individual or internalized racism.
Cultural Racism. Manifests as societal beliefs and customs that promote the assumption that the products of a given culture,
including the language and traditions of that culture, are superior to those of other cultures. It shares a great deal with xenophobia,
which is often characterized by fear of, or aggression toward, members of an out group by members of an in group
Economic Racism. Historical economic or social disparity is alleged to be a form of discrimination caused by past racism and
historical reasons, affecting the present generation through deficits in the formal education and kinds of preparation in previous
generations, and through primarily unconscious racist attitudes and actions on members of the general population
Aversive Racism. A form of implicit racism, in which a person's unconscious negative evaluations of racial or ethnic minorities are
realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups.
Systemic Racism. Includes the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions, which result in the exclusion or promotion
of designated groups. It differs from overt discrimination in that no individual intent is necessary.

It manifests itself in two ways:

Institutional racism: racial discrimination that derives from individuals carrying out the dictates of others who are
prejudiced or of a prejudiced society.
Structural racism: inequalities rooted in the system-wide operation of a society that excludes substantial numbers of
members of particular groups from significant participation in major social institutions.

Structural Racism. A system in which public policies, institutional practices, cultural representations, and other norms work in
various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuate racial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have
allowed privileges associated with “whiteness” and disadvantages associated with “color” to endure and adapt over time. Structural
racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and
political systems in which we all exist.
Institutionalized Racism. The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people
because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to
discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
White Privilege. White privilege, or “historically accumulated white privilege,” refers to whites’ historical and contemporary
advantages in access to quality education, decent jobs and livable wages, homeownership, retirement benefits, wealth and so on.
HISTORY OF RACISM IN THE US
 CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States The Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary
Constitution servitude, except as punishment for a crime. it was
passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, and by
the House on January 31, 1865. The amendment was
ratified by the required number of states on
December 6, 1865. On December 18, 1865, Secretary
of State William H. Seward proclaimed its adoption.
It was the first of the three Reconstruction
Amendments adopted following the American Civil
War.
Black Codes The Black Codes, sometimes called Black Laws, were
laws governing the conduct of African Americans
(free blacks). The best known of them were passed in
1865 and 1866 by Southern states, after the American
Civil War, in order to restrict African Americans'
freedom, and to compel them to work for low wages.
Although Black Codes existed before the Civil War
and many Northern states had them, it was the
Southern U.S. states that codified such laws in
everyday practice.
14th amendment Impatient with the leniency shown toward the former
Confederate states by Andrew Johnson, who became
president after Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865,
so-called Radical Republicans in Congress overrode
Johnson’s veto and passed the Reconstruction Act of
1867, which basically placed the South under martial
law. The following year, the 14th
Amendment broadened the definition of citizenship,
granting "equal protection” of the Constitution to
people who had been enslaved.
15th amendment The 15th Amendment, adopted in 1870, guaranteed
that a citizen’s right to vote would not be denied—on
account of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude.” During Reconstruction, Black Americans
won election to southern state governments and even
to the U.S. Congress. Their growing influence greatly
dismayed many white southerners, who felt control
slipping ever further away from them.
The white protective societies that arose during this
period—the largest of which was the Ku Klux
Klan (KKK)—sought to disenfranchise Black voters
by using voter suppression and intimidation as well
as more extreme violence.
16th Century By 1900, “persons of color” were required to be
separated from white people in railroad cars and
depots, hotels, theaters, restaurants, barber shops
and other establishments. On May 18, 1896, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued its verdict in Plessy v.
Ferguson, a case that represented the first major test
of the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s provision of
full and equal citizenship to African Americans. By
an 8–1 majority, the Court upheld a Louisiana law
that required the segregation of passengers on
railroad cars.
Among the most heartbreaking examples of
structural racism’s subtle effects are accounts shared
by black children.
Anti-Black Violence Between the turn of the 20th century and the 1920s,
multiple massacres broke out in response to false
allegations that young black men had raped or
otherwise assaulted white women. In August 1908, a
mob terrorized African American neighborhoods
across Springfield, Illinois, vandalizing black-owned
businesses, setting fire to the homes of black
residents, beating those unable to flee and lynching at
least two people. Local authorities, argues
historian Roberta Senechal, were “ineffectual at best,
complicit at worst.”
Emmet Till, August 1955 In August 1955, a 14-year-old black boy from
Chicago named Emmett Till had recently arrived in
Money, Mississippi to visit relatives. While in a
grocery store, he allegedly whistled and made a
flirtatious remark to the white woman behind the
counter, violating the strict racial codes of the Jim
Crow South. Three days later, two white men—the
woman’s husband, Roy Bryant, and his half-brother,
J.W. Milam—dragged Till from his great uncle’s
house in the middle of the night. After beating the
 boy, they shot him to death and threw his body in the
Tallahatchie River. The two men confessed to
kidnapping Till but were acquitted of murder
charges by an all-white, all-male jury after barely an
hour of deliberations.
Emmet Till, August 1955 In August 1955, a 14-year-old black boy from
Chicago named Emmett Till had recently arrived in
Money, Mississippi to visit relatives. While in a
grocery store, he allegedly whistled and made a
flirtatious remark to the white woman behind the
counter, violating the strict racial codes of the Jim
Crow South. Three days later, two white men—the
woman’s husband, Roy Bryant, and his half-brother,
J.W. Milam—dragged Till from his great uncle’s
house in the middle of the night. After beating the
boy, they shot him to death and threw his body in the
Tallahatchie River. The two men confessed to
kidnapping Till but were acquitted of murder
charges by an all-white, all-male jury after barely an
hour of deliberations.
'I Have a Dream,' 1963 On August 28, 1963, some 250,000 people, both black
and white, participated in the March on Washington
for Jobs and Freedom, the largest demonstration in
the history of the nation’s capital and the most
significant display of the civil rights movement’s
growing strength. After marching from the
Washington Monument, the demonstrators gathered
near the Lincoln Memorial, where a number of civil
rights leaders addressed the crowd, calling for voting
rights, equal employment opportunities for Black
Americans and an end to racial segregation.
'I Have a Dream,' 1963 The last leader to appear was the Baptist
preacher Martin Luther King Jr. of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), who spoke
eloquently of the struggle facing Black Americans
and the need for continued action and nonviolent
resistance.
This paved the way for;
·Civil Rights Act of 1964, July 1964
·Freedom Summer
·Voting Rights Act of 1965
·Rise of Black Power
·Fair Housing Act, April 1968
On April 4, 1968, the world was saddened by the
news that Martin Luther King Jr. had been shot and
killed.
Los Angeles Riots, 1992 In March 1991, officers with the California Highway
Patrol attempted to pull an African American man
named Rodney King over for speeding on a Los
Angeles freeway. King, who was on probation for
robbery and had been drinking, led them on a high-
speed chase, and by the time the patrolmen caught
up to his car, several officers of the Los Angeles
Police Department were on the scene. After King
allegedly resisted arrest and threatened them, four
LAPD officers shot him with a TASER gun and
severely beat him.
Caught on videotape by an onlooker and broadcast
around the world, the beating inspired widespread
outrage in the city’s African American.
Los Angeles Riots, 1992 In March 1991, officers with the California Highway
Patrol attempted to pull an African American man
named Rodney King over for speeding on a Los
Angeles freeway. King, who was on probation for
robbery and had been drinking, led them on a high-
speed chase, and by the time the patrolmen caught
up to his car, several officers of the Los Angeles
Police Department were on the scene. After King
allegedly resisted arrest and threatened them, four
LAPD officers shot him with a TASER gun and
severely beat him.
Caught on videotape by an onlooker and broadcast
around the world, the beating inspired widespread
outrage in the city’s African American.
Million Man March, 1995 In October 1995, hundreds of thousands of Black
men gathered in Washington, D.C. for the Million
Man March, one of the largest demonstrations of its
kind in the capital’s history. Its organizer, Minister
Louis Farrakhan, had called for “a million sober,

The Black Lives Matter Movement
disciplined, committed, dedicated, inspired Black
men to meet in Washington on a day of atonement.”
Farrakhan, who had asserted control over the Nation
of Islam (commonly known as the Black Muslims) in
the late 1970s and reasserted its original principles of
Black separatism, may have been an incendiary
figure, but the idea behind the Million Man March
was one most Black—and many white—people could
get behind.
The term “Black lives matter” was first used by
organizer Alicia Garza in a July 2013 Facebook post
in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a
Florida man who shot and killed unarmed 17-year-
old Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012. Martin’s
death set off nationwide protests like the Million
Hoodie March.
A series of deaths of Black Americans at the hands of
police officers continued to spark outrage and
protests. The movement swelled to a critical juncture
on May 25, 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19
epidemic when 46-year-old George Floyd died after
being handcuffed and pinned to the ground by police
officer Derek Chauvin.

KU KLUX KLAN (KKK)

 The Ku Klux Klan, commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is an American white supremacist hate group whose primary
targets are African Americans, as well as Jews, immigrants, leftists, homosexuals, and, until recently, Catholics.
 Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for
white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic
equality for Black Americans.
 Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and Black Republican leaders.
Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the
reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.
 After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and
staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, African Americans and organized labor.
 The civil rights movement of the 1960s also saw a surge of Ku Klux Klan activity, including bombings of Black schools and
churches and violence against Black and white activists in the South.

Goals:
1. The KKK supports the idea of the extinction of blacks, Catholics, and Jews.
2. The Klan believes the only way races can develop their full potential and culture is through racial separation.
3. Wished for whites to be the dominant race in the world.
4. Total take-over of politics within America.
First Klan (1865-1870’s)
·The Klan was first brought about in 1885 in Tennessee by six veterans of the Confederate Army.
(Frank McCord, Richard Reed, John Lester, John Kennedy, J. Calvin Jones and James Crowe)
·The Klan’s aim was to restore white supremacy through threats and violence against black and white republicans.
·The Klan would patrol areas and attack people who didn’t fit their criteria. Mainly black people.
·The Klan slow started to decline and consequently ended in the 1870’s due to resistance from other groups.
·The Klan declined in strength in part because of internal weaknesses; its lack of central organization and the failure of its
leaders to control criminal elements and sadists. More fundamentally, it declined because it failed to achieve its central objective
– the overthrow of Republican state governments in the South.
Second Klan (1915-1944)
·The second Klan was founded atop Stone Mountain, Georgia, by William Joseph Simmons. 
·The second Klan was found in 1915 in Atlanta, however was only put into action from 1921 onwards.
·The second Klan adopted the burning of a Latin cross as their symbol. The burning of a cross was used as a symbol of
intimidation.
·This period saw the highest number of members, peaking at six million.
·The Klan ended in 1944 as a result of internal divisions, criminal behaviour by leaders and external opposition.
·Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders especially Stephenson's conviction for the abduction, rape, and
murder of Madge Oberholtzer and external opposition brought about a collapse in the membership of both groups. The main
group's membership had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.
Third Clan (1946-Present)
·It appeared in the 1950s and 1960s when a local KKK group bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.
·Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization”.
·They bombed homes, killed, firebombed and violated laws and many rights.
·As of 2016, researchers estimate that there are just over 30 active Klan groups existing in the United States, with about 130
chapters. Estimates of total collective membership range from about 3,000] to between 5,000–8,000. In addition to its active
membership, the Klan has an "unknown number of associates and supporters".
Violence of the Ku Klux Klan:
1951
·Members of the Ku Klux Klan firebomb the home of NAACP Florida executive director Harry Tyson Moore and his wife,
Harriet, on Christmas Eve. Both are killed in the explosion.
1963
·The KKK performed a huge act of rebellion with violence. On this date a white man exited his car carrying a box which he
then placed on the steps of a church named “Sixteenth Street Baptist Church”. After that was an explosion that caused the
death of four black girls and 23 injured people. The man suspected of the crime was Robert Chambliss, who was a member of
 The Ku Klux Klan.
1964
·The Mississippi chapter of the Ku Klux Klan firebombs twenty predominantly black churches, and then (with the aid of
local police) murders civil rights activists James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner.
1979
·Five communist protesters were killed by KKK and American Nazi Party members in Greensboro, North Carolina, in what
is known as the Greensboro massacre. The Communist Workers' Party had sponsored a rally against the Klan in an effort to
organize predominantly black industrial workers in the area. Klan members drove up with arms in their car trunks, and
attacked marchers.
1981
·The lynching of Michael Donald in Mobile, Alabama on March 21, 1981, was one of the last reported lynching in the United
States. Several Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members beat and killed Michael Donald, a 19-year-old African-American, and hung
his body from a tree. One perpetrator, Henry Hays, was executed by electric chair in 1997, while another, James Knowles,
was sentenced to life in prison after pleading guilty and testifying against Hays. A third man was convicted as an accomplice,
and a fourth was indicted but died before his trial could be completed. Hays' execution was the first in Alabama since 1913
for a white-on-black crime. It was the only execution of a KKK member during the 20th century for the murder of an African
American.
Current Status:
·The Klan has expanded its recruitment efforts to white supremacists at the international level. For some time, the Klan's
numbers have been steadily dropping. This decline has been attributed to the Klan's lack of competence in the use of
the Internet, their history of violence, a proliferation of competing hate groups, and a decline in the number of
young racist activists who are willing to join groups at all.
PROGRAMS AND LAWS THAT WERE PASSED IN RESPONSE TO RACISM
 Fair Housing Act

A law enacted in 1968 prohibiting discrimination in the buying, selling, renting, or financing of housing. This includes
discrimination based on race, skin color, sex, nationality, religion, disability, or any other characteristics from a protected class.
Also provides procedures for handling individual complaints of discrimination. Individuals who believe that they have been
victims of an illegal housing practice, may file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] or
file their own lawsuit in federal or state court. The Department of Justice brings suits on behalf of individuals based on referrals
from HUD.
 Civil Rights Act of 1964

Prohibited employers from firing, refusing to hire or promote, or in any way limiting an employee's compensation or job
conditions because of race.
A promising statutory avenue for dealing with discrimination in health care delivery.
Prohibits any entity that receives Federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race in providing goods or
services to the beneficiaries of that Federal program. Since Federal financial assistance includes Medicare and Medicaid.
 Role of Academia in Combatting Structural Racism in the United States

The Association for Prevention Teaching and Research (APTR) is the national membership association of medical, public health,
and health professions faculty and institutions advancing prevention and population health education, training, and research.
APTR calls upon post-secondary educational institutions in the United States—particularly health professions schools and their
academic units that teach prevention and public health—to take action to reduce the impact of racism from within their walls and
to assume proactive responsibility for teaching students and the general public about racism’s causes and effects.
 Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations General Assembly in 1965, and entered into force 1969.
a UN policy for eliminating all forms of racial discrimination
 Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination

a federal law prohibiting discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial
status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry,
culture or language.
MOVEMENTS ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
The 1791 Haitian Revolution
An army composed of former slaves who were able to defeat forces of big colonial powers and came up with an independent
black republic. Another example is the struggle of the Chechen people who resisted Russian imperialism and the resistance to
maintain the native cultures and identities of the oppressed peoples despite attempts to break the whole ethnic groups.
Civil Rights Movement In Virginia
Organized by the Virginia Historical Society and cosponsored by the Department of Historic Resources with additional grant
support from Philip Morris USA (American tobacco division of the American tobacco corporation Altria Group), the Jackson
Foundation, the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities and Public Policy, and the Honorable and Mrs. Elliott S. Schewel.
African American Civil Rights Movement
A struggle for social justice that took place mainly during the 1950s and 1960s for Black Americans to gain equal rights under
the law in the United States.
The best-known non-violent social movement in American history. It set the framework in terms of non-violent tactics,
collective leadership, and radically democratic ideology. 
Disability Rights Movement
To gain equal treatment and fair accommodation for people with disabilities
People with disabilities have pushed for the recognition of disability as an aspect of identity that influences the experiences of an
individual, not as the sole-defining feature of a person.
Asian American And Pacific Islander Movements
The radical phase of the movement included street level groups like :
I Wor Kuen
-a radical Marxist Asian American collective that originally formed in 1969 in New York City’s Chinatown. Borrowing from the
ideologies of the Young Lords and the Black Panthers, IWK organized several community programs and produced a newsletter
series promoting self-determination for Asian Americans. 
Red Guard
 -a mass student-led paramilitary social movement mobilized and guided by Chairman Mao Zedong in 1966 through 1967, during
the first phase of the Chinese Cultural Revolution)
Black Lives Matter
Movement founded in 2013 advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all
racially motivated violence against African-American people.
Chicano Movement
A civil rights movement inspired by prior acts of resistance among people of Mexican descent.
It is a resistance to discrimination towards Mexican Americans who claim deeper roots in certain regions of the United States
than most other citizens
Once opened border between the United States and Mexico had become a zone of harassment separating families and loved ones,
and subjecting both Mexican visitors and Mexican American citizens to constant threats of deportation or refusal of reentry.
WHO'S WHO?
Martin Luther King Jr.
Born: January 15, 1929 – Died: April 4, 1968
Michael King Jr. is born in Atlanta to Michael King Sr., a prominent local preacher and civil-rights leader, and Alberta
King, a former schoolteacher.
He first became conscious of racism at age 6, when a white friend’s father prohibits his son from playing with Martin.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright
daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have
the final word.”
June 8, 1948
King graduates from Morehouse College, in Atlanta, with a bachelor’s degree in sociology. Later, he earns a bachelor-of-
divinity degree from Crozer Theological Seminary, in Chester, Pennsylvania, and a doctorate in systematic theology from
Boston University.
(In 1991, a BU committee would determine that King had plagiarized passages of his dissertation, “A Comparison of the
Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman,” from other scholars’ work.)
June 18, 1953
King marries Coretta Scott, an activist and aspiring singer from Alabama studying at the New England Conservatory of Music.
After his death, she would advance her husband’s legacy by founding the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent
Social Change.
1955–1956
Activists organize a boycott of the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama, after Rosa Parks, a black woman, is arrested for
refusing to give up her seat to a white man. A former head of the state’s NAACP calls on King, now the 26-year-old pastor of a
local black church, to lead the boycott because he’s “young and intelligent with leadership ability” and has a “wonderful
speaking voice.” The protest lasts 381 days, ending in victory after the U.S. Supreme Court rules that segregation on public buses
is unconstitutional.
January 10–11, 1957
Notables in the civil-rights movement form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to coordinate nonviolent protest
actions in the South. They soon elect King as the organization’s president.
February 1959
At the invitation of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, King visits India for a month, meeting with social reformers, government
officials, and associates of the late Mahatma Gandhi, whose acts of civil disobedience to free the country from British rule
inspired King’s own approach to bringing about change. “I left India more convinced than ever before,” King writes at the
time, “that non-violent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.”
August 28, 1963
At the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, then the largest protest in U.S. history, King addresses an estimated
250,000 people on the National Mall. His soaring call for racial justice comes to be known as the “I Have a Dream” speech,
after his ad-libbed ending.
December 10, 1964
King receives the Nobel Peace Prize. At age 35, he is its youngest recipient so far. He promises to donate the prize’s $54,123
award to the civil-rights movement.
March 1965
In response to the continued disenfranchisement of millions of black people across the South, the SCLC and other civil-rights
groups demand voting rights in a 54-mile march from Selma, Alabama, to the state capital of Montgomery. Local police and
white mobs react brutally to the nonviolent protest, beating many participants; two white demons trators are murdered. The
march hastens passage of the federal Voting Rights Act later in the year.
April 4, 1967
In a speech titled “Beyond Vietnam,” delivered at Riverside Church in Manhattan, King declares his opposition to the Vietnam
War. He publicly criticized the war two months earlier, in a speech to the Nation Institute. But the widely publicized Riverside
Church speech upsets many of King’s usual allies, who accuse him of hurting the cause of civil rights by alienating the American
government and public. With this stand, King expands his calls for social justice at home into a broader, pacifist message.
April 4, 1968
While in Memphis to protest black sanitation workers’ poor treatment by the city, King is shot as he stands on a balcony at the
Lorraine Motel. He is declared dead about an hour later. The murderer, James Earl Ray, flees the country and is arrested two
months later at Heathrow Airport, in London; he is known to be a racist, but his exact motive is never made clear. (Sentenced to
99 years in prison, he dies of natural causes in 1998). The assassination sparks riots in more than 100 U.S. cities. President
Lyndon B. Johnson declares a national day of mourning.
Abraham Lincoln
Born: February 12, 1809 – Died: April 15, 1865
He was an American statesman and lawyer who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 to 1865. Lincoln
led the nation through its greatest moral, constitutional, and political crisis in the American Civil War. He succeeded in
preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy.
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it;
and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored
race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to
save the Union.”
Slavery and Civil War
The Civil War had been going on for over a year, and it was not going well for Abraham Lincoln. 11 of the 15 southern states
where slavery was legal had formed the Confederate States of America (CSA) and were waging a war to break free from the
 United States.
Ironically, when Lincoln became president, he had had no intention of abolishing slavery. Though he personally despised
slavery, and had won the presidency on an anti-slavery platform, he would gladly have given up any chance of ending slavery in
the South if it meant that the Confederate states would rejoin the United States.
Difference of Abolitionists and Anti-Slavery
Abolitionists advocated for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the United States. They comprised a tiny but vocal
minority of Northerners in the years leading up to the Civil War.
Anti-slavery proponents, however, did not want to outlaw slavery in the South; they just wanted slavery to be illegal in any new
states as the United States expanded westward. Though many anti-slavery advocates found slavery morally repugnant, they were
generally more worried about the fate of white farmers in the West than they were about the lives of enslaved blacks in the
South.
Lincoln's Dilemma

The problem with abolishing slavery, however, was that there were still four slave states that had not seceded from the United
States: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Lincoln feared that if he advocated emancipation he would provoke those
states into joining the Confederacy, making the war even more difficult to win. Of the Border States, Maryland was particularly
worrisome, because the US capital at Washington D.C. sat on its border with Virginia. If Maryland decided to join the
Confederacy, Washington D.C. would be completely surrounded by enemy territory.
Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863
The Emancipation Proclamation granted freedom to the slaves in the Confederate States if the States did not return to the
Union by January 1, 1863. In addition, under this proclamation, freedom would only come to the slaves if the Union won the
war.
The Problem about the Emancipation Proclamation
It's important to note that Lincoln specified that enslaved people would only be freed in states which were "then in rebellion
against the United States"—the states of the Confederacy. He even gave those states the opportunity to rejoin the Union
before January 1, 1863 to prevent the proclamation from going into effect (they declined).
Significance of the Proclamation
The Emancipation Proclamation made emancipation an official part of the United States's military strategy. As the US army
made its way across the South, it truly became an army of liberation. As enslaved people learned about the proclamation, they
took an active role in freeing themselves from bondage, knowing that the army would defend them. Black men were accepted
into the army to play their own part in ending slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation made a promise: it promised that the United States was committed to ending slavery once and
for all. It promised African Americans in the South that under no circumstances would they be returned to slavery if the United
States won the war. Finally, it promised the Confederacy that there was no turning back the clock to before the war. The
Emancipation Proclamation made the promise that the Civil War would change the United States forever.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to enslaved people in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and
Maryland, which had not joined the Confederacy. Lincoln exempted the Border States from the proclamation because he didn't
want to tempt them into joining the Confederacy.
BARACK OBAMA
 Many Americans changed their perceptions of discrimination and racism after Barack Obama became the nation’s first
black president. This belief that racial biases had softened, however, did not translate to positive feelings about policies
that address racial disparities, according to a new University of Michigan study.
 Seven years later, the profound optimism for Obama's victory seems misplaced. Almost immediately, the Obama
presidency unleashed racial furies that have only multiplied over time. From the tea party’s racially tinged attacks on the
president’s policy agenda to the “birther” movement’s more overtly racist fantasies asserting that Obama was not even
an American citizen, the national racial climate grew more, and not less, fraught.

DONALD TRUMP
 Trump’s real-estate company was sued twice by the federal government in the 1970s for discouraging the renting of
apartments to African-Americans and preferring white tenants, such as “Jews and executives.”
 In 1989, Trump took out ads in New York newspapers urging the death penalty for five black and Latino teenagers accused
of raping a white woman in Central Park; he continued to argue that they were guilty as late as October 2016, more than 10
years after DNA evidence had exonerated them.
 He spent years claiming that the nation’s first black president was born not in the United States but in Africa, an outright lie
that Trump still has not acknowledged as such.
 He began his 2016 presidential campaign by disparaging Mexican immigrants as criminals and “rapists.”
 Trump has retweeted white nationalists without apology.
 He frequently criticizes prominent African-Americans for being unpatriotic, ungrateful and disrespectful.
 He called some of those who marched alongside white supremacists in Charlottesville last August “very fine people.”
 He is quick to highlight crimes committed by dark-skinned people, sometimes exaggerating or lying about it, such as a claim
about growing crime from “radical Islamic terror” in Britain. He is very slow to decry hate crimes committed against dark-
skinned people, such as the murder of an Indian man in Kansas last year.
 At the White House on January 11, Trump vulgarly called for less immigration from Haiti and Africa and more from
Norway.

IMPACTS OF RACISM TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

- It gives the US supremacists the validation that they are powerful
- It draws the attention of international audiences

IMPACTS OF RACISM TO THE WORLD

- It allows the global world to come as one in order to eliminate any forms of discrimination
 - If the United States is going to heal its society and remain a source of inspiration abroad, it has to publicly and openly
embrace self-criticism.

IMPACTS OF RACISM TO THE PHILIPPINES

- It could be a way for us to reflect upon ourselves
- It draws political and social participation of many Filipinos
- It can be a way for us to attract migrants

TERRORISM IN UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA
Terrorism- the deliberate use or threat of violence by non-state actors in order to achieve political goals and create a
broad psychological impact.
Violence and the threat of violence- are important components of terrorism. 
TYPES OF TERRORISM:
 RIGHT-WING TERRORISM- refers to the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities
whose goals may include racial or ethnic supremacy; opposition to government authority; anger at women,
including from the incel (“involuntary celibate”) movement; and outrage against certain policies, such as
abortion.This analysis uses the term “right-wing terrorism” rather than “racially- and ethnically-motivated
violent extremism,” or REMVE, which is used by some in the U.S. government.
 LEFT-WING TERRORISM- involves the use or threat of violence by sub-national or non-state entities that
oppose capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism; pursue environmental or animal rights issues; espouse pro-
communist or pro-socialist beliefs; or support a decentralized social and political system such as anarchism.
 RELIGIOUS TERRORISM- includes violence in support of a faith-based belief system, such as Islam,
Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, among many others. The primary threat from religious terrorists comes
from Salafi-jihadists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
 ETHNONATIONALIST TERRORISM- refers to violence in support of ethnic or nationalist goals—often
struggles of self-determination and separatism along ethnic or nationalist lines.

*Between 1994 and 2020, there were 893 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. Overall, right-wing
terrorists perpetrated the majority—57 percent—of all attacks and plots during this period, compared to 25
percent committed by left-wing terrorists, 15 percent by religious terrorists, 3 percent by ethnonationalists, and 0.7
percent by terrorists with other motives.
*religious terrorism has killed the largest number of individuals—3,086 people—primarily due to the attacks on
September 11, 2001, which caused 2,977 deaths.The magnitude of this death toll fundamentally shaped U.S.
counterterrorism policy over the past two decades. In comparison, right-wing terrorist attacks caused 335 deaths,
left-wing attacks caused 22 deaths, and ethnonationalist terrorists caused 5 deaths.
SOME NOTABLE TERROR ATTACKS IN US:
 February 26, 1993 - A bomb explodes on the second subterranean level of Vista Hotel's public parking
garage, below the 2 World Trade Center building in New York. Six people are killed, and more than 1,000
people are treated for injuries. Six suspects are convicted of participating in the bombing. The seventh
suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, is still at large.
 September 11, 2001 - Nineteen al Qaeda members hijack four US passenger airliners. Two are flown into
the Twin Towers in New York, one crashes into the Pentagon and another crashes into the Pennsylvania
countryside after passengers attempt to wrest control of the aircraft to prevent an attack on the US Capitol.
At the World Trade Center site 2,753 people are killed; 184 at the Pentagon; and 40 in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania. A total of 2,977 people are killed.
 July 16, 2015 - Mohammad Abdulazeez opens fire on a military recruiting center and a Naval reserve facility
in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four US Marines and a Navy sailor. Abdulazeez dies in a gunfight with
law enforcement. FBI Director James Comey later says Abdulazeez's actions were "motivated by foreign
terrorist organization propaganda," adding that it's difficult to determine which terrorist group may have
inspired him.
 June 12, 2016 - Omar Mateen, an American-born man who'd pledged allegiance to ISIS, kills 49 people and
wounds others in a shooting spree at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the second-deadliest mass shooting in
recent US history and the nation's worst terror attack since 9/11. Police shoot and kill Mateen inside the
club.
 December 6, 2019 - A gunman opens fire on a Naval air station in Pensacola, Florida, killing three US
sailors. The shooter, identified as Mohammed Alshamrani, a 21-year-old second lieutenant in the Royal
Saudi Air Force and a student naval flight officer, is killed in an exchange of gunfire with two deputies.
During a news conference on January 13, 2020, Attorney General William Barr says the shooting was an act
of terrorism motivated by "jihadist ideology." The FBI announces on May 18, 2020, information retrieved
from the killer's phone indicated he was a longtime associate of al Qaeda who had communicated with
operatives from the group as recently as the night before the shooting.
 December 10, 2019 - Two shooters attack a Kosher grocery store in Jersey City, New Jersey, killing three
people inside the shop. New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal later says the killings are being
investigated as domestic terrorism, "fueled by both anti-Semitism and anti-law enforcement beliefs." Before
committing the murders at the store, the shooters killed a police detective near a Jersey City cemetery. The
shooters, David N. Anderson, 47, and Francine Graham, 50, die in a standoff with police.
THE 9/11 ATTACK:
 September 11 attacks, also called 9/11 attacks, series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed in
2001 by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States, the
deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil in U.S. history. The attacks against New York City and Washington,
D.C., caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S.
 The September 11 attacks were precipitated in large part because Osama bin Laden, the leader of the militant
Islamic organization al-Qaeda, held naive beliefs about the United States in the run-up to the attacks.
 The key operational planner of the September 11 attacks was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

SOME POLICIES OF US GOVERNMENT AGAINST TERRORISM:

 The Country Reports on Terrorism are submitted in compliance with Title 22 of the United States Code,
Section 2656f (the “Act”), which requires the Department of State to provide to Congress a full and complete
annual report on terrorism for those countries and groups meeting the criteria of the Act.
 “Terrorist Expatriation Act’’- Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include among those voluntary
acts for which a U.S. national (by birth or naturalization) will be subject to loss of U.S. nationality: (1) providing
material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the Secretary of State; (2)
engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States; or (3) engaging in, or
purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against any country or armed force that is directly engaged
along with, or that is providing direct operational support to, the United States in hostilities engaged in by the
United States.
 "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996"-An Act to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims,
provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.
 ‘‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001’’-To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around
the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
 ‘‘Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004’-To reform the intelligence community and the
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes.
 ‘‘Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2004’-to increase criminal penalties relating to terrorist murders, deny
Federal benefits to terrorists, and for other purposes.
 ‘‘Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act of 2002’’-To implement the International Convention for
the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to strengthen criminal laws relating to attacks on places of public use, to
implement the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to combat terrorism and
defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for other purposes.

RESPONSES OF US GOVERNMENT TO COUNTER TERRORISM:

 Creating the “Homeland Security Act”- signed by President George Bush to defend the United States and
protect the citizens against the dangers of a new era.This act of Congress will create a new Department of
Homeland Security, ensuring that our efforts to defend this country are comprehensive and united
 The United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan, hereafter
referred to as the CONPLAN, is designed to provide overall guidance to Federal, State and local agencies
concerning how the Federal government would respond to a potential or actual terrorist threat or incident that
occurs in the United States, particularly one involving WMD.
 USA deprived al-Qaida of safehaven in Afghanistan and helped a democratic government to rise in its place.
Once a terrorist sanctuary ruled by the repressive Taliban regime, Afghanistan is now a full partner in the War on
Terror.
 Strengthened our ability to disrupt and help prevent future attacks in the Homeland by enhancing
counterterrorism architecture through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of
Director of National Intelligence, and the National Counterterrorism Center. Overall, the United States and
partners have disrupted several serious plots since September 11, including al-Qaida plots to attack inside the
United States.
 The Administration has worked with Congress to adopt, implement, and renew key reforms like the USA
PATRIOT Act that promote our security while also protecting our fundamental liberties.