1- The Missing Link in the State of the Union Energy Agenda
2-The Arab League’s Political Horizons for Syria
3-Chancellor Angela Merkel Asks “Do We Dare More Europe” Amidst Widespread Skepticism
4-Measuring the Causes of Instability in the Middle East and North Africa

The Missing Link in the State of the Union Energy Agenda

State of the Union 2012, Energy, U.S. Congress ,January 25, 2012
By Mark Muro, Senior Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan Policy Program ,and Kenan Fikri, Senior Research Assistant, Metropolitan Policy Program

It was good to hear strong shout-outs for clean and renewable energy sourcing as part of the balanced energy stance promoted in President Obama’s State of the Union speech this week.

We’ve long agreed that the “all of the above” energy approach Obama championed last night could be desirable so long as it is just that—oriented to the balanced development of all sources including American renewable and clean energy as well as fossil fuel resources.
Up Front Blog

In that nexus lies a politically defensible sweet-spot notwithstanding the tough politics of the energy debate.

And yet, the president left out a crucial link in his renewed commitments to both clean energy and increased conventional energy: He missed the opportunity to tie the revenues from fossil fuel drilling permits and licenses to investment in energy innovation.

In this respect, a truly potent “all of the above” stance would move to link reasonable continued fossil fuel exploitation to investments in the innovation necessary to accelerate the widespread adoption of clean new energy technologies. Along these lines, a smart “all of the above” approach to the nation’s energy challenges might channel the royalties and fees associated with increased off-shore and inland fossil fuel extraction into programs like ARPA-e, the Energy Innovation Hubs, or more generally into basic and applied clean energy research and deployment.

And as it happens, such a linkage once had (and may again garner!) bipartisan support. After all, not so long ago Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), now speaker, introduced the House Republicans’ American Energy Act of 2009 and in it proposed a bargain that would have paired expanded oil and gas drilling with new investments in renewable and alternative energy. The bill proposed putting hundreds of billions of anticipated new oil and gas revenues (and that even before the shale gas boom) into a trust fund to accelerate clean energy innovation. The upshot: For a few fleeting months that broad outline pointed to an intriguing way forward.

Now, maybe that grand trade beckons again. Yet to make it a truly productive agreement the Obama team needs to remember that “all of the above” should entail a true trade. Here is hoping that the forthcoming elaboration of the new stance backs up the president’s stated commitments with a commonsense proposal for linking stepped-up fossil fuel extraction to revenue-raising for investments in new and cleaner energy technologies.

Chancellor Angela Merkel Asks “Do We Dare More Europe” Amidst Widespread Skepticism by Diana Villiers Negroponte, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative
January 26, 2012

European pundits gathered at the first luncheon of the 2012 World Economic Forum (WEF) to debate the causes of the Eurozone crises and the optimum way forward. They identified over regulation, ineffective enforcement, pro-cyclical policies, and politicians’ pandering to protectionist pressures. The consequence was a less competitive trading bloc with falling productivity and 23 million unemployed Europeans. Each of the pundits – a lawyer, banker, professor, public relations executive and journalist – differed somewhat in his analysis of the causes and also gave distinct remedies. Three alternatives dominated the discussion: closer political union, one or two countries leaving the Eurozone, or a bit of both. There was a need to restore trust between society and business, credibility in the rule of European Union laws, jobs and competitiveness. It was a dismal survey and the following lunch discussion was not much

Three hours later at the formal opening of the WEF, German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke with passion and minimum reference to her written text on the need for Europe to further integrate. “Do we dare more Europe?” led her call for greater fiscal and labor integration. Acknowledging that events were occurring at a faster pace than the capacity of political leaders to respond, she understood that unemployed Europeans were clamoring for decent jobs and she rejected the departure of nations from the Eurozone. Instead, the European Community should “communitize further.” Only through more steps toward integration would Europe meet its challenge of competitiveness and job creation. Merkel insisted that Europe needs competitive and innovative products to maintain and increase economic prosperity for its entire people. She was prepared to work closely with French President Sarkozy to achieve this.

She delivered benchmarks for measuring progress:

Is the Eurozone willing to be held liable for breaches of its rules;
Is it willing to raise and spend money for education, skills training and infrastructure; and
Is it willing to be more transparent?

Despite Merkel’s forceful presentation, the credibility of Europe’s political leaders and their capacity to respond to the crisis was is in doubt. Questions linger about how Europe can become more competitive amidst strong protectionist tendencies. Divergent opinions mark the mutation of European capitalism and its capacity to respond to society’s needs.

The next European summit approaches on January 31st. The immediate problem is how to restore credibility in the European Central Bank and the newly created permanent facility, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). Should credibility be awarded based upon the quantity of funds –€550 Billion or a doubling to €1 trillion – or through the leader’s determination to act in unison?

Merkel will push for transferring greater authority “competence” to the Commission and to the Parliament, but national governments are bogged down in local politics, income gaps dominate the “Occupy Movements” and the banks are fighting new regulations. National pettiness competes with a regional visionary. At this time, it remains uncertain that the new “Iron Lady” can persuade the 27 EU members that they should strive together. Instead, there appears a resignation to muddle through with half-hearted fiscal integration. The next three months will demonstrate whether Merkel can hold the union together.

The above piece is one of two that Diana Negroponte, an attendee at the 2012 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, has written about topics discussed at the conference. The other piece includes a discussion on the critical elements for developing innovation

The Arab League’s Political Horizons for Syria by Salman Shaikh, Director, Brookings Doha Center 26 Jan 2012

The Arab League surprised the world last Sunday by setting a roadmap for a political transition in Syria. Most significantly, the organization called for Bashar al-Asad to step aside and grant power to a deputy and national unity government in the run-up to parliamentary and presidential elections. On the day that President Saleh finally departed Sanaa for medical treatment in the US, there seemed to be an Arab League consensus that a Yemen-style transition would be the best course of action in Syria. Also, for the first time, the Arab League stated its intention to refer the initiative to the UN Security Council for approval.

The latest developments eclipsed the much anticipated report of the Arab League’s monitoring mission, which now has little or no relevance. While the decision was taken to extend the mission by one month and to double the observers to around 300, its role of pressuring an end to the violence and opening up Syria to regional and international scrutiny has become part of the broader political goal of expelling Asad.
Saudi Arabia’s decision to pull out its observers, charging that the mission has failed to alter Syrian behavior, has, in turn, led to the withdrawal of all Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) monitors in Syria. With a GCC delegation set to head to Moscow on Thursday, all eyes are now focused on the political track at the UN. It is likely that in Moscow, the Gulf states led by Saudi Arabia will discuss both the Arab League’s “middle political path” as one senior Saudi official described it and how to achieve an “economic horizon” for future Russian gains in the region. The proactive stance spelled out by Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal is in sharp contrast to its past behind-the-scenes efforts to preserve stability and contain regional threats. The Saudis, Qataris, and by extension, the entire GCC have decided that Asad must go, and go quickly.
Predictably, Asad has rejected the Arab League’s proposal, and a statement on state television echoed past claims of violations of Syrian sovereignty, calling the Arab League initiative “a flagrant interference in Syria’s internal affairs.” Indeed, Asad will likely continue his efforts to win hearts and minds, especially in Moscow and Beijing, by making the case that he has already charted a course for a transition to democratic governance. In his last speech on January 10, Asad stressed the need to reform the Syrian government, speaking in particular about a constitution that “will focus on … the multi-party system and political pluralism,” but also ruled out the possibility of a national unity government. What we must fear is a ratcheting up of the regime’s violence, especially as clashes between the its forces and defecting army troops intensify.
The lack of dissenting statements from Arab League member states suggests a region-wide sea change. Lebanon was the only country that did not approve the plan, while Algeria opposed taking the matter to the Security Council. The fact that Iraq, which has been hesitant to approve Arab League action in Syria in the past, has not back-tracked up until now is significant. It may also signal an Iranian preference for a unity government to take power in Syria. This has been the message that pro-Ahmadinejaad emissaries have recently been sending to the Syrian opposition.
More ominous still for Asad was Monday’s statement from Mikhail Margelov, Chairman of the International Affairs Committee in Russia’s upper house of the Duma and one of the most influential foreign policy thinkers advising the Russian leadership. He was quoted in the state-run Itar-Tass news agency as saying that “(our) veto (of the October 4 resolution) was the last instrument allowing Asad to maintain the status quo in the international arena … it was a serious signal to the president of Syria from Russia. This veto has exhausted our arsenal of such resources.” Notably, Margelov was the last Russian official to meet with Muammar al-Qadhafi before Russia withdrew its veto concerning Libya in the UN Security Council. His statement may be the first sign that Russia’s position is shifting.
The Arab League’s adoption of the “Yemen model” for Syria, rather than the use of force, as in the case of Libya, will not work if there is not an international consensus on how to move forward. Now is therefore the right time to establish an international contact group, perhaps jointly chaired by the Arab League and the UN Secretary-General, which includes key Arab and regional states, particularly Turkey, the United States, Europe, and if possible, Russia and China. With the Asad regime becoming the primary source of instability in Syria and the wider region, it is high time for the international community to work together with the Syrian opposition to ensure the exit of the Asad family from Syria and a post-regime transition. In this regard, newly appointed Arab League and UN envoys should be dispatched to Moscow and Beijing, as well as key Western capitals.
In the days and weeks ahead, diplomacy will play a critical role, as long as it forms part of a principled plan and is executed expeditiously and without hubris. Now is not the time for another confrontation in the UN Security Council or a return to past arguments over Libya or Iraq. For the sake of Syria and the entire region, it is time to banish the ghosts of these episodes. Diplomacy must lead to a political solution in Syria that protects the freedom and rights of all its people after 42 years of brutal Baath party rule. It must also ensure that no power vacuum develops in post-Asad Syria. The Arab League’s plan may provide us with the best opportunity to avoid these scenarios and to chart a political path away from civil war in Syria. We must not waste this opportunity.

Measuring the Causes of Instability in the Middle East and North Africa

The Burke Chair at CSIS has developed a new report entitled The Causes of Instability in the Middle East and North Africa, which is available on the CSIS web site at: http://csis.org/files/publication/120126_MENA_Stability_Slides.pdf

© 2012 Brookings
© 2012 CSIS