Was Russia’s response — ferocious response — to Georgia’s move in South Ossetia predictable? The answer is “Yes”

The Georgia crisis is worrying the world.  The facts are roughly as follows (of course, even facts sometimes become subjective).

South Ossetia considers itself independent — it has declared itself so since the early 1990s but recognition for this independence has been sparse if any.  Most of the world consider South Ossetia part of Georgia.  Most (70 percent) of the inhabitants of South Ossetia hold Russian passport.  Russia has explicitly and implicitly blessed the independent claim of South Ossetia. So South Ossetia is a disputed territory.

So far so good.  In a mood to assert its authority,  Georgia’s military forces moved into South Ossetia to dispel any claims of independence.  This move by Georgia came as the Olympic games were beginning in Beijing.

Russia, which has long chafed at the loss of its geopolitcal power and corresponding respect, reacted sharply — very sharply — and even dramatically to rebuff the Georgia forces.  The Russian military has continued its offensive as if it intends to subjugate Georgia.

The world is aghast at this turn of events.  But this turn of events was predictable for many reasons.  First, South Ossetia has been disputed territory for the last 15 years and more.  The world has let it simmer because there has been no easy answer {think the Palestinian-Israel dispute, Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan, territorial disputes between China and Japan (resolved recently), dispute between China and India (unresolved), Falkland Islands dispute}.  Second, Georgia has been increasingly demonstrating a desire to cozy up with American and Europe so much so that there is talk of inviting Georgia to be part of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  Third, Russia wants to assert its geopolitical power and is looking for an easy opportunity (and Georgia’s military assertion was an easy one to respond.)  Fourth, majority of South Ossetia inhabitants hold Russian passport.

Given these facts, that Russia would not respond to move by Georgia is not a surprise — may be the ferocity of the response has been a bit of surprise.

For all its geopolitical aspirations, it is not clear that Russia needed to be so ferocious in its response — moving deep into Georgia’s territory including cutting off some of the ports, cities and highways (e.g. Gori highway). Does Russia stand to lose its international legitimacy?  May be.  Human memory appears to be short, and political compulsions and convenience are too powerful not to make up with Russia eventually.

Update: The media news reports (The New York Times and others) suggest that Georgia has been contemplating a move into South Ossetia for sometime.  Secretary Condoleeza Rice apparently warned the Georgian government and President Saakashvili (privately) in July 2008 about such militaty incursion.  But Georgia neither listened to the U.S. nor provided any adavnce notice of its incursion in August.  Clearly, Georgia’s gamble did not pay off.  On the other hand, Georgia’s gamble has put the global community — United States, Russia, Europe — in a bind.

John McCain and Barack Obama: Definitional efforts not quite on the mark (yet)

John McCain and Barack Obama are engaged in defintion of their opposition.  John McCain wants to define Barack Obama as a man without substance and not ready to be assigned the responsibility of the presidency of the United States.  Barack Obama wants to define John McCain’s potential presidency as a broad continuation of the policies and principles enunciated and executed by President George W. Bush (for the moment, the country is soured on President Bush’s policies though it is possible that history may judge him differently).

Fair enough. It is all about positioning your self and the other guy.

Politics is not only the art of possible but it is also art of definition.

John McCain’s first advertisement which made a serious effort at defining Barack Obama as a vain celebrity with no substance consisted of showing Obama being loved by large throngs in a manner similar to the throngs attracted by Britney Spears and Paris Hilton — that is crowds that are curious because of the fame though there is no evident talent.  That was okay and created a lot of buzz.  The ad, probably, even pushed down preference for Barack Obama.

However, the effect has not been sustained unlike other successful definitional ads — think of definition of Kerry as a flip-flopper through wind-surfing ad or the definition of Dukakis as weak through Willie Horton ad — because the ad did not link its message of ‘vain celebrity’ with any policy proposal of Obama which could be classified as all show and no susbtance (unlike the wind surfing ad which linked Kerry to his statement on Iraq — I voted for it before I voted against it, and the Willie Horton ad which linked Dukakis to the fact that Horton had been fuloughed by Governor Dukakis).

However, McCain’s second ad — one that lingers briefly on celebrity issue and then pivots to policy issues on taxes and energy — is okay but again since the link between “celebrity” issue and the policy issues is general (there is no memorable specificity) and tenuous the ad is not likely to define Obama as McCain intends to.

Barack Obama’s several attempts to link McCain to President Bush has been only modestly effective for two reasons.  Fristly (and importantly), there is no news worthiness to that concept — after all the electorate does expect some level of linkage between McCain and President Bush as they are from the same party.  Secondly, McCain has been fending off such links by highlighting some policy difference with President Bush and confusing the electorate.

So, thus far, neither McCain nor Obama have quite succeeded in defining their opposition, and that’s why the preferences (poll numbers) are pretty stable.

The choice of a vice-president (likely to be Governoe Tim Kaine or Senators Evan Bayh or Joseph Biden for Obama, and no evident optimal choice for McCain — Governors Pawlenty and Romney most mentioned but may not be the final choice by McCain) and the party conventions may be more successful in defining (positioning) the self and the opposition.

The status report on the 123 agreement and India-US Nuclear agreement

Here is a status report on the 123 agreement and the India-US Nuclear agreement –

(1)  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and India have nowsuccessfully negotiated specific safe guards for nuclear safety.

(2)  It appears that India and the United States have agreed on a draft proposal to be presented to the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) — a group of 45 countries with nuclear technologies and fuel.  However, Japan — one of the important members of the NSG — appears to be reluctant to approve an exemption to supply nuclear technologies (the exemption would be to permit supply of nuclear technologies and fuel to a country that is a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)).  Japan wants India to sign the NPT before the supply of nuclear technologies is approved.  Given Japan’s historic experience with the awesome destructive powers of nuclear technology, Japan’s reluctance is understandable but at the end of the day Japan is likely to go along with the United States’advocay of India’s case.  But there may be surprises from China and/or other countries.  So there is some uncertainty with respect to the approval in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.

(3)  It appears that the approval of an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group is likely to happen around September 10th.  With NSG’s approval, the so-called 123 agreement would be completed.  That would permit countries like Australia, France, Japan, and Russia to supply nuclear technologies to India though it is most likely that there would be either explicit or implicit agreement that no such supplies would take place till the U.S. Congress approved the nuclear exemption for India (so-called India-US Nuclear Agreement).

(4)  And here is the toughest part of the navigation.  The U.S. Congress’ approval for the India-US Nuclear agreement is fraught with any uncertainties.  First, the U.S. Congress will be in session only till about September 26th.  Since the U.S. Congress cannot consider the Nuclear agreement till the NSG approves the exemption, that would leave only about 15-20 days for the consideration of the agreement.  It is most likely to be discussed and debated, and approved in such a short time.  Second, Representative Howard Berman, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, one of the key members of the U.S. Congress has raised concerns about the substance of the agreement and timetable for approval.  Third, if the agreement is considered in the lame-duck session of the U.S. Congress i.e. in the months of November-December after the U.S. elections President Bush is likely to have very little leverage on the agenda of the Congress.  Further, the general sentiment in the Democratic party is not in favor of special exemption for India because of concerns of nuclear non-proliferation (and the Democratic party is likely to make significant electoral gains).

(5)  Of course, the anxiety about the Hyde Amendment in the India-US Nuclear agreement remains.  But as pointed out by A.K. Mago (of Dallas), one of my thoughtful friends and champions of the India-Nuclear agreement, it is most unlikely that any American President will trigger the use of Hyde Amendment for two reasons.  One, the U.S. business investment in India’s nuclear advances would be so broad and deep that the business compulsions will be too powerful to trigger the cessation of nuclear business with India.  Two, India has always acted with a sense of responsibility and is likely to act with robust sense of responsibillity that India is unlikely to provide even a remote cause for triggering the Hyde Amendment.

A.K. Mago’s argument, while it may not be air-tight, it is compelling and persuasive enough for India to consider the agreement if it comports well with the national security elements.

(6)  The Communist parties were principled to oppose the India-US Nuclear agreement based on the worries about the Hyde Amendment but the Congress party, too, was principled is supporting the agreement based on hope and powerful future geo-political and business computations.

(7)  Nevertheless, the debate over the 123 agreement and the India-US Nuclear agreement has scrambled the political landscape in India.

Volatility v Stability in the preference measurements: John McCain v Barck Obama presidential preferences

There is so much public debate and discussion about the daily ups and downs (variations) in the presidential preference measurements of the choice between John McCain and Barack Obama.  The daily tracking preference measurements such as Rasmussen Reports and Gall Up have amplified these variations.

There is some simple but powerful principle in social sciences about human attitudes and behaviors, and it is this:  there is a long-run stability (equilibrium) to attitudes and behaviors, and they change only with discrete and different (different from the current portfolio) information.  Of course, there are likely to be temporary shifts to attitudes and preferences in response to rush of some not-so-discrete or different information (a bit of adrenaline rush) but the attitudes/behaviors reverse to the stable average.

While there have been steady stream of information from and about Barack Obama and John McCain, it does not appear that they have been so discrete and different as to alter attitudes and behaviors.

In response to Obama’s well received foreign policy visits abroad (during the week of July 21st), the preference measures went up in favor of Obama but they returned to the stable average in a hurry because really there was no new substantial information about Obama’s foreign policy — frankly, no body doubted Obama’s smarts or sophistication.  It was all priced in.

And then when McCain tried to tag Obama as an elitist celebrity (during the week of July 28th) the preferences for Obama went down some.  But nobody really thinks that Obama is a celebrity — it is not going to be easy to sell an African-American born to middle-class parents as a celebrity.

So the preference measures have bounced back in favor of Obama during this week i.e. August 4th — and now Obama leads McCain by about 4 points.

That’s where we stand.  The choices of vice-presidents and/or the party conventions and/or presidential debates are probably events — apart from any other major and unexpected event — may contain some new and dramatic information that may be shift the preferences.  Otherwise, not so.

For example, if the party conventions are nice (not all those events but some of them) and feel-good events the numbers will change temporarily but then they preferences will return the same averages.

So nothing will change — permanently — till we have some new information (good or bad) that makes reassess Obama and McCain.

The irreconcilability in Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s positions

India’s Parliamentary (Lok Sabha) speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, issued a long statement on August 1, 2008.  In that statement, Chatterjee thanked the Communist Party of India for providing him opportunities to serve the public cause and deplored the party’s decision to expel him from the party for indiscipline.

The speaker repeatedly evokes the lofty principle of non-party, non-ideological and constitutional nature of the Office of the Speaker.  In Chatterjee’s view, the office of the Speaker required that he not be member of any political party.  That’s the reason, he refused to resign his office of Speakership and participate in the vote of confidence.

All this would have been wonderful if Chatterjee had not been evidently inconsistent –

(1)  The Speaker criticized the Communist parties for aligning themselves with the Bharatiya Janata Party.  In his view, that was a cardinal sin because the BJP is a non-secular party.  Independent of the merits of this argument, a non-partisan Speaker should not have expressed such partisan views.

(2)  The Speaker maintained and renewed the primary membership of the Communist Party through out his tenure as the Speaker by paying his party membership dues every year including for the year, 2008.  Clearly, the Speaker sought to maintain his political identity.

So it does not all cohere well.

Updates on the McCain-Obama Polls and Preference Measurements, and Is Obama Underperforming in the polls?

It is now clear that in the last two weeks the preference differential between McCain and Obama for the United States presidency has narrowed modestly, and the choice has become closer.  Based on the state preference measurements, Obama still retains the electoral edge and greater plausibility of knitting together 270 electoral votes but that edge is also modest.

Obama had a wonderful week of foreign policy tour — well-received and well-executed.  Ironically, the very success of that visit became fodder for McCain’s critique — Obama is a globalist who may be an elitist, advertised McCain.   McCain employed several tongue-in-cheek statements and promotions.

There are also early indications that the cycle of preferences may now be headed for a small (and again perceptible) upturn for Obama (after the downturn during the week of July 28th).  Obama appears to be regaining traction during the week of August 4th (Gall Up shows a modest lead of 3-4 points after being tied over the weekend).

Charles Franklin has done a nice analysis of the time-series preference data from the 2000, 2004 and the 2008 presidential elections (see the chart below).   The analyses simply tells that there are many more ups and downs to come.  What is most interesting is that Gore outperformed the final polls by almost 3 points in 2000, and Kerry underperformed the final polls by almost 1.5 points in 2008.  So the ground game and the level of enthusiasm on the elections day will matter.

The electorate appears to favor the Democrats by a 10-15 percent margin but Obama leads McCain by 3-4 percent margin.  Why this differential?  Is Obama underperforming?  May be not.

Structurally, the election appears to be geared in favor of Obama.  Many models by political scientists suggest that Obama is likely to be the winner.  And given below is one such model (refer to Doug Hibbs) which forecasts election outcomes from the income growth.  As seen from the following chart, the incumbent certainly loses the popular vote when the growth rate is less than 1 percent.  Beyond that there is no generalization.  The current growth rate, while sluggish, is more than 1 percent and therefore, there is no certainty about the outcome of the elections.

Based on his model, and assumptions of 1.5 percent economic growth and 3 percent rate of inflation, Professor Ray Fair (Yale University) predicts that McCain would get about 48 percent of the vote (52 percent for Obama).  Again, not overwhelming odds.

The model employed by Macroeconomic Advisers of St. Louis includes both political and economic variables.  Incorporating political variables such as  whether the candidate is from the incumbent party, approval ratings and the length of time the incumbent party has held the White House to capture the extent voters may have tired of them, and economic variables such as the growth and the unemployment rates, this model suggests that McCain will get about 46 percent of the vote.  That’s a bigger margin, indeed.

Doug Hibbs model predicts about 48 percent of the vote for McCain — again a modest victory for Obama.

Apart from the fact that Obama’s victory is likely to be moderate, there are many other uncertainties and factors at play such as Obama’s race and life-experience.  Regarding race the question simply is: what percentage of the electorate may find an African-American choice a bit too risky without being racist?  Call it Bradley-Wilder effect, if you want.  Various preference measures put this number at different levels but there is a consensus that this number may be between 10 and 20 percent.  That’s a big slice of the pie.  Nobody knows and nobody will know till the  day after the elections.

Obama’s life-experience is unique and somewhat exotic — he was born in Hawai to a Kenyan dad and a Kanasas mom, he grew up in Indonesia, he is a man of faith and a Christian but his name is atypical.  Obama’s strength is his his ability to assimilate different cultures and views, and his eclecticism.  But these exact qualities also make him appear rootless and lacking an identity to some electorate.  And this breeds wariness and uncertainty.  Political scientists and observers such as David Brooks (The New York Times) and others also think so.

Eventually, these misplaced uncertainties — arising from race and peripatetic and eclectic life — will dissipate.  But will it happen in the next 100 days, that’s the question.

The Ramar Sethu project debate in India: The Indian Supreme Court thinks that there is a simple solution

Ramar Setu, or the Sethusamudram Project in Gulf of Mannar separating India and Sri Lanka has evoked strong reactions from both the proponents and the opponents of the project.  The project is designed to create viable for pathway for ships to travel reducing the distance and time and thus bringing greater efficiency and productivity.

 

However, the current pathway proposed by the Indian government (called alignment 6) involves destruction of Ramar Sethu bridge, also called Adam’s bridge.  Ramayana, an epic considered sacred by those practicing Hinduism (i.e., more than 75 percent of India), depicts this bridge as one built by Rama – one of the many Hindu gods (Hinduism is a pantheistic faith).

 

The proponents of the project tout the potential economic and commercial benefits.  They also cite that the studies show that the project would have minimal impact on the environment. 

 

The opponents of the project oppose for different reasons.   Some dispute government’s claim that ships will be able to travel through the new pathway.  Per these opponents, the ships will not change their travel ways because the new pathway is not viable enough and therefore, the project is a pie-in-the-sky.  Other opponents affirm that the project will cause irreparable damage to the environment including potentially causing more flooding and amplification of Tsunamis. 

 

A third group of opponents are upset that a bridge considered sacred by most Hindus is being destroyed.  Of all the opposition, the third objection has been most vociferous and politically difficult.  The matter is now being litigated in the Indian Supreme Court.

 

Much political capital and energies have been expended on this public policy issue.  The debate is not unlike the debate on off-shore drilling in the U.S. except that the Indian debate has a serious emotive and faith-based element also.

 

The question simply is this: Is there another pathway for the project so that the Ramar Sethu/Adam’s bridge can be preserved?

 

After reviewing all the documents, the Indian Supreme Court affirms that such an alternative pathway exists.  If that is the case, why has the Indian government dithered and squandered so much energies and political capital?  This is inexplicable.  May the alternative pathway is a bit more expensive.  That’s fine because public policy decisions can not be made based only on cost elements.

 

Here is the Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan asking the Indian government’s counsel, “Why can’t you consider Alignment No. 4 with a little deviation from the Dhanuskodi point and you can avoid this bridge [Ramar Sethu]. The area is also away from the biopark.”

 

The day after the India-US Nuclear agreement debate and the vote of confidence: tough going for India and the Indian government

The day after winning the vote of confidence/trust, the prospects look tough for the Indian government.  Here is why –

(1) 123 agreement and India-US Nuclear agreement:  The 123 agreement and the India-US Nuclear agreement approvals themselves are fraught with many uncetainties.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board is likely to approve the India-specific safeguards.  While the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) is likely to approve an exemption for India, the language of such exemption is likely to be fraught with many dissatisfying elements for India.  Further, the final (delayed, though) approval by the U.S. Congress is also likely to have unfavorable collateral elements for India.  Furthermore, most members of the NSG are not likely to sell/supply nuclear fuel and technology unless the U.S. Congress approves the agreement.

So there are likely to be more challenges than benefits in the short term for India and the  Indian government.

(2) Terrorism: In the last month, the fear of terrorism has become real, immediate and urgent.  The Indian embassy in Kandahar was bombed, and then series of deadly blasts shook the cities of Bangalore and Ahmedabad.  In the midst of this, the Indian government has looked a bit out of sorts. 

(3)  Tough Economic times:  The difficult economic times are not easy to manage.  The pressures on inflation are likely to continue.  While the oil prices may come down some, the general inflationary pressures are not likely to abate for the next 6-8 months.  The trade deficit and the balance of payments are worsening, and the Indian Rupee is depreciating.  The U.S. economy — by far the largest economy in the world — is expected to be sluggish for the next two and three quarters, and this will have a collateral negative impact on India too.  So, even if the Indian government acts most competently and timey, the tough ecconomic times are likley to persist for the next 6-9 months.

(4)  Fragile and difficult political coalition:  The Communist parties out of the governing coalition, and are insistent that the Congress party and the ruling coalition is at odds with interests of the common man.  The Communist parties are likley to form a third political grouping with other parties such as Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Telugu Desam Party (TDP), and more.  The fragmentation of the opponents of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and National Democratic Alliance (NDA), and the supporters of the Congress party and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is not good political news for the governing coalition.  Additionally, the ruling coalition has to make room to share power with Jharkand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and Samajwadi Party (SP), and this is certain to cause heatburns.

(5)  Liberalization policies:  The proposals to further liberalize the Indian economy are fraught with immediate economic uncertainty and politial pitfalls.  For example, if the government proposes to make recruitment andd retrencchment of employees more market-oriented and less regulated, that’s a good proposal in the medium and longer term.  However, the life of this government is short - it will have to face the electorate in the 8-9 months.

The proposed labor policies, for example, will lead to the inevitable perception that the government is anti-labor and therefore anti-common person is inenvitable.  That will be politically devastating.  Economically, too, the short-term effect of such a policy is more likely negative because firms are likley to shed to exccess fat to become profitable. 

So it goes with any liberalization policy (e.g, the productivity of the capital, increasing foreign equity participation).  The short terms are likley to be unfavorable to the ruling coalition.

(6)  Facing the electorate in 8-9 months:  There is no choice in this — the ruling coalition has to face the electorate in the next 8-9 months.  That is plenty of time to be blamed for tough economic times, and not enough time for the  economy to correct itself and/or the government to make productive proposals.

The arithmetic does not compute for the latest USA Today/Gall Up poll

The USA Today/Gall Up preference measurement shows that among the likely voters (791 of them), McCain leads 49-45 but among the registered voted (900 of them) Obama leads 47-44. 

Essentially, the poll is stating that among 109 additional voters, Obama made such whopping gain that it amounted to net gain of 7 points among all the sample i.e. 900 of them.  So among  the 109 voters, the net gain has to be about 63 points in favor Obama.  That is among those additional 109 voters, Obama worsted McCain something  in the order of 80-20 percent i.e about 85 of the additional 109 voters support Obama and about 24 of them McCain.  Those numbers are most improbable, almost impossible. 

There is something awfully odd about this poll.  It just does not compute.

Add to this oddity, the tracking poll by Gall Up (the same polling organization that did the preference measurement with USA Today) among a sample of more than 2,000 registered voters during the same time period as the USA Today/Gall Up poll shows an Obama lead of 8-9 points.

The Gall Up poll’s likely model produced very volatile results — sometimes shifts of 5-10 points in one day in the 2000 and 2005 presidential elecctions.  The challenges with Gall Up organization’s likely voters model are discussed comprehensively by Professor Erikson. See, erikson_poq.

A quick note on the vice-presidential choices.  As noted elsewhere in this blog, it appears that consistent with the optimal timing for him Obama will make the announcement of his vice-presidential choice in the next 4-6 days (the candidacy of Senators Bayh and Biden, and Governor Kaine look most probable).  It is not clear when McCain will make his announcement (and that, too, is consistent with the fact that there is no evident optimal timing or candidate for McCain).  See the other postings on this matter (search, “vice president).

Update on the timing and choice of the vice-presidential decisions for John McCain and Barack Obama

It is time for John McCain and Barack Obama to make the Vice-presidential choices. Please see read my postings for more information, “When are Obama and McCain likely to announce their vice-presidential choices?”; The electoral vote math: how does it stack up for McCain and Obama?; and “Assessment of the vice-presidential choices for John McCain and Barack Obama.” Search with the phrase, “vice president”.

Here is the thinking on this matter –

Obama: The optimal timing for the announcement of the vice-presidential choice for Obama is between July 28th and August 3rd. Assuming a closely-contested election, the most optimal choice is either Governor Tim Kaine (most recommended) or Senator Joseph Biden. Evan Bayh, too, could be a good choice but winning Virgina is more plausible than Indiana.

McCain: The optimal timing for announcement of his vice-presidential choice is not so evident. There are only two possible windows — July 28th to August 6th or August 29th-30th. Even assuming a closely contested election, the most optimal choice is also not evident. But it appears that Governors Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty or Rep. Rob Portman may be the electorally prudent choice but it is difficult to rule out Governor Sarah.

Let us wait and see. The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama’s focus “now includes five colleagues in the U.S. Senate — Joseph Biden, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed — and two governors, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, according to Democratic operatives, though he could still make a different pick.” And McCain’s choices include “ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a rival during the Republican primaries; Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, with whom he has a strong friendship; and former Rep. Rob Portman of the battleground state of Ohio. Republicans also are touting Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, and campaign adviser Carly Fiorina, ex-CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co., among others.”