Give The People What They Want

Every election sees Democrats offering vague promises to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Maybe they shouldn't be so vague. As this Yale-led survey (PDF) shows (found via Heather Hulbert), energy independence may be better politics than we think. 92% of Americans think dependence on imported oil is a somewhat or very serious problem (68% say "very serious). That's a bipartisan judgment, too. 70% of Democrats say very serious, 68% of Republicans, and 66% of Independents, so agreement on this is broad.

But picking out problems is easy, getting folks to agree on solutions is not. Well, not usually. In this case, however, consensus seems reached. 93% think "requiring the auto industry to make cars that get better gas mileage" is a good or very good idea. 89% want the auto industry making more fuel efficient cars. Interestingly, only 71% want the promotion of fuel cells and only 70% want tax credits for hybrid buyers. Americans seem most comfortable with the most coercive (to the auto industry, at least) solutions.

In this, the partisan differences are more stark, though not by much. 96% of Democrats and Independents want to raise CAFE standards, while only 85% of Republicans agree. Nevertheless, get 85% of Republicans on your side and 96% of everyone else and methinks you have a majority. Hell, 90% of SUV owners think it a good idea.

For Democrats, this is a gaping, obvious opportunity. Mentioning oil independence isn't enough, progressive politicians should stand onstage and challenge their opponents to sign onto their declarative policies to wean us off foreign oil. Higher CAFE standards means lower gas costs for Americans, less instability in the Middle East, more freedom to criticize Saudi Arabia. It's good policy and, it seems, stunningly good politics. Democrats should be fighting hard to be out front on it. I don't know if it'll make us the "Party of Ideas", but it'll help us be the "Party of Solutions", which I think is just as good.

The EU Comes In Handy

Speaking of nuclear stuff: Longtime readers of my blog know that I've taken something of an interest in the European Union. Today, Xinhua is reporting that Iran doesn't want the EU to give up the ghost on stalling its nuclear progress:

Iran warned the European Union (EU) Sunday that the next round of negotiators between the two sides will be the last chance to save the stalled nuclear talks.

"Iran has decided to negotiate with the European trio (France, Germany and Britain) for one more time upon their request, and the upcoming meeting will be their last chance," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi told a weekly news briefing.

One problem: In the same article, it is revealed that Iran's parliament voted to resume uranium enrichment activities. If this whole thing were a movie script, the EU would currently be cast in the role of "Iran's patsy." In the short-term, this isn't so bad: The EU is still mostly a united front with the US, at least in terms of strategic objectives, and Iran is too visible for it to practice on anyone's credulous simplicity.

That said, this does seem troubling for EU enthusiasts. The worry here is that, in future situations, the EU will become a stalling mechanism for nations that would otherwise be staring down the barrel of sanctions or worse. If international diplomacy is all about incentives, the EU is in a precarious position: They need Iran as badly as Iran needs them, as a testing ground for a new diplomatic power that relies chiefly on soft-power incentives. They won't want to pull the trigger on sanctions or small-scale military action (e.g. bombing nuclear development sites), because pulling that trigger would mean that their own tactics - and a lot of their raison d'etre, foreign policy-wise - had been judged obsolete. Will the EU be so eager to prove themselves as an important power that they fail to acknowledge the increasingly obvious reality of Iran's nuclear ambitions - and provide Iran procedural cover in the process? Only time will tell.

- Daniel A. Munz

Arms to China?

Timothy Garton Ash is quite right on this -- the EU should be ashamed that it needed White House pressure to maintain its arms embargo on China. Readers know I'm something of an EU booster, mainly because I think their emphasis on diplomatic relations, morally defensible policy-making, and emphasis on soft power are proving pretty powerful as a counterweight to American belligerence. But you can't spend the days pasting gold stars on yourself and then turn around to try and ship armaments to a country with a terrible human rights record and a continuing habit of threatening to invade Taiwan. And to be talked down by Bush? Someone should be apologizing for allowing that gut punch to European dignity.

As Garton writes, it's not that the US is blameless here -- we export 6.7% of China's weapons while Europe only provides 2.7%, and it's hard to fault the EU for wanting to cultivate the Dragon as a primary trading partner (this year, the EU passed America as China's largest source of trade), but they need to keep the moral high ground when doing it. China is an emerging force, no doubt about that. But we have to remember that, eventually, they won't be emerging anymore, they'll be a real force, and the dynamics of the relationships we forge now will dictate our ties later. For now, China is something of a precociously smart, shockingly strong, child. Don't let him think he can just bully the world.