Iranian President in the Big Apple
Yesterday at the United Nations, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, met his Iranian counterpart, Mohammed Javad Zarif. Their discussions covered Syria and Iran’s nuclear programme.
There will be other meetings of senior British government officials at the UN in the coming days. The question that arises from this is whether, finally, a thaw is under way between Iran and the west.
After President Hassan Rouhani won the August election in Iran, David Cameron wrote offering congratulations and expressing the hope that his election would “present an opportunity to improve relations between our two countries.” This was reflected in Hague’s comments yesterday, after the meeting. "The United Kingdom does not seek a confrontational relationship with Iran and is open to better relations,” he said, adding that “I believe a more constructive relationship can be created."
Has the poison finally been drawn from the relationship with Iran? Writing in Prospectearlier this year, Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, suggested that Rouhani, previously the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, had a reputation for considerable political skill. This, Campbell suggested, could help to sway Iran’s internal politics. Campbell wrote of Rouhani’s victory that: “It would be wise to be optimistic about these electoral results and irresponsible to dismiss the opportunity they present.”
But it would be wrong to view Rouhani as a complete break with the past. He has previously argued forcefully for Iran’s right to enrich uranium to levels suitable for power generation—Iran’s nuclear programme is still active. However, the enrichment mechanism at this lower level uses the same process as for weapons grade material.
But Rouhani is not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and has been much more conciliatory in his tone than his predecessor. Rouhani is coming to New York to attend the UN General Assembly—the question is whether while he is there, he will meet President Barack Obama. US officials have been more receptive in recent years to the possibilities of meeting their counterparts in the corridors of this annual melée. The question is whether, if Obama does want to give Rouhani some time, what limit he will put on it. At this stage of Iran’s nuclear programme, mere months can take the work a big step forwards.
Debts and shut-downs
However, President Obama’s mind might be somewhat more trained on domestic problems. The arcane way in which the US government funds itself means that Congress controls the cash dispensed to government programmes. It also has the power to cut it off. There is a danger of this happening in the coming days and if Congress cannot negotiate a particularly complex procedural maze by Monday, then the Government will go into shutdown.
The problem is that the congressmen and women in the lower House of Representatives have confected a Continuing Motion that gives the government money it needs to operate, but which also “defunds” the Affordable Care Act, or as it is also known “Obamacare”. This poison-tipped political proposal has been passed to the Senate for a further vote. The question now is whether the Senate can strip out the defunding clauses to allow the Continuing Motion to pass, which will grant government access to the cash it requires in order to function.
Government shutdowns are held up by fiscal hawks as the purest manifestation of their hatred of government spending. Washington is getting out of hand with its profligacy—it must be stopped, goes the thinking. It is a line that speaks to a certain fringe political tendency that regards all government activity as inherently dubious. But it overlooks the difficult fact that shutdowns cost money. The 1996 shutdown, engineered by Newt Gingrich in protest at the Clinton Government’s plans, cost the US economy over $1bn—some estimates put the figure substantially higher.
And perhaps more significant than this is the question of the Debt Ceiling, which will be reached in mid-October. The last Congressional wrangle over raising the government’s borrowing limit in 2011 caused terrible ructions. If there were to be a repeat of that unseemly spat, then the shock to economic confidence could unsettle the US’s anaemic recovery, causing borrowing costs to rise. That would have economic consequences far beyond the US. Seen in this light, the present government shutdown fight takes on additional significance.
But then the political football at the centre of all this, Obamacare, is funded by a mechanism that would not be affected by a shutdown and it will happen irrespective of Washington politicking. It is a dangerous time for US conservatives. They are in a position in which they can only deliver negatives to the electorate—much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And when a celebrity such as Katy Perry is tweeting enthusiastically to her 44m followers about the President’s healthcare scheme, which is due to begin on 1st October, might Republicans begin to get the sneaking suspicion that on this one, they are entering a situation in which they risk sinking to the bottom, with their principles tied firmly about their necks?
Yesterday at the United Nations, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, met his Iranian counterpart, Mohammed Javad Zarif. Their discussions covered Syria and Iran’s nuclear programme.
There will be other meetings of senior British government officials at the UN in the coming days. The question that arises from this is whether, finally, a thaw is under way between Iran and the west.
After President Hassan Rouhani won the August election in Iran, David Cameron wrote offering congratulations and expressing the hope that his election would “present an opportunity to improve relations between our two countries.” This was reflected in Hague’s comments yesterday, after the meeting. "The United Kingdom does not seek a confrontational relationship with Iran and is open to better relations,” he said, adding that “I believe a more constructive relationship can be created."
Has the poison finally been drawn from the relationship with Iran? Writing in Prospectearlier this year, Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, suggested that Rouhani, previously the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, had a reputation for considerable political skill. This, Campbell suggested, could help to sway Iran’s internal politics. Campbell wrote of Rouhani’s victory that: “It would be wise to be optimistic about these electoral results and irresponsible to dismiss the opportunity they present.”
But it would be wrong to view Rouhani as a complete break with the past. He has previously argued forcefully for Iran’s right to enrich uranium to levels suitable for power generation—Iran’s nuclear programme is still active. However, the enrichment mechanism at this lower level uses the same process as for weapons grade material.
But Rouhani is not President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and has been much more conciliatory in his tone than his predecessor. Rouhani is coming to New York to attend the UN General Assembly—the question is whether while he is there, he will meet President Barack Obama. US officials have been more receptive in recent years to the possibilities of meeting their counterparts in the corridors of this annual melée. The question is whether, if Obama does want to give Rouhani some time, what limit he will put on it. At this stage of Iran’s nuclear programme, mere months can take the work a big step forwards.
Debts and shut-downs
However, President Obama’s mind might be somewhat more trained on domestic problems. The arcane way in which the US government funds itself means that Congress controls the cash dispensed to government programmes. It also has the power to cut it off. There is a danger of this happening in the coming days and if Congress cannot negotiate a particularly complex procedural maze by Monday, then the Government will go into shutdown.
The problem is that the congressmen and women in the lower House of Representatives have confected a Continuing Motion that gives the government money it needs to operate, but which also “defunds” the Affordable Care Act, or as it is also known “Obamacare”. This poison-tipped political proposal has been passed to the Senate for a further vote. The question now is whether the Senate can strip out the defunding clauses to allow the Continuing Motion to pass, which will grant government access to the cash it requires in order to function.
Government shutdowns are held up by fiscal hawks as the purest manifestation of their hatred of government spending. Washington is getting out of hand with its profligacy—it must be stopped, goes the thinking. It is a line that speaks to a certain fringe political tendency that regards all government activity as inherently dubious. But it overlooks the difficult fact that shutdowns cost money. The 1996 shutdown, engineered by Newt Gingrich in protest at the Clinton Government’s plans, cost the US economy over $1bn—some estimates put the figure substantially higher.
And perhaps more significant than this is the question of the Debt Ceiling, which will be reached in mid-October. The last Congressional wrangle over raising the government’s borrowing limit in 2011 caused terrible ructions. If there were to be a repeat of that unseemly spat, then the shock to economic confidence could unsettle the US’s anaemic recovery, causing borrowing costs to rise. That would have economic consequences far beyond the US. Seen in this light, the present government shutdown fight takes on additional significance.
But then the political football at the centre of all this, Obamacare, is funded by a mechanism that would not be affected by a shutdown and it will happen irrespective of Washington politicking. It is a dangerous time for US conservatives. They are in a position in which they can only deliver negatives to the electorate—much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
And when a celebrity such as Katy Perry is tweeting enthusiastically to her 44m followers about the President’s healthcare scheme, which is due to begin on 1st October, might Republicans begin to get the sneaking suspicion that on this one, they are entering a situation in which they risk sinking to the bottom, with their principles tied firmly about their necks?
