America's dangerous debt dance

By threatening debt default and government shutdown, Congressional Republicans are risking disaster.

The world turns, seasons come and go, the sun rises and falls, and the American government collapses into chaos at the mere mention of the possibility of passing a budget. Such is the way of things; and this week's crisis has given us just more of the dreary same, except that every time the cycle comes around again, the apocalyptic language gets dialled up a notch. Every time the band strikes up for the annual dance of President and Congress with shut-down and debt default, the music is that little bit louder, the tempo that little bit faster.

The Republican leadership in Congress - who already have a reputation for stubbornness that would make a mule blush and who sometimes act as if they really think this is all just a political dance, and not the actions of a government whose decisions affect people - truly rose to the occasion this time. They rolled out a preposterous set of demands from a long-list of Fox News talking points, including defunding Obamacare; dropping greenhouse gas and oil drilling restrictions, and the building of an expensive and controversial new oil pipeline, among others.

In the Senate, there were some fireworks: first-term Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz tried to capture the drama of a filibuster in a silly but entertaining 21-hour speaking session which saw him, among other things,
reading Green Eggs and Ham to the Senate chamber.

Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the shenanigans by calling a vote in which the Senate overwhelmingly chose (79-19 - a super-majority, above the point at which hard-line Republicans like Cruz could filibuster) to cut off debate on the legislation. Then, the Senate voted along party lines to strip Republican policy demands from the bill, and passed what amounted to a stopgap that would fund the government until the middle of November. This has now been batted back to the House of Representatives, with Reid making it clear his Senate would not vote on any budget bill with Republican demands bolted on again.

Meanwhile on Wednesday, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent a warning to the House of Representatives that the point at which the United States would be unable to pay its obligations - meaning a potentially catastrophic US default on debt - would be reached on October 17 if the debt ceiling, the self-imposed limit on US government borrowing, isn't raised. (The borrowing limit was actually reached in May, but the problem was put off by the imposition of the package of emergency measures known as the Sequester.)

The row over a bill to raise the debt ceiling has mirrored the row over the budget, with Republicans again demanding ideological bolt-ons; but the debt ceiling issue is the more important of the two: a government shutdown would be embarrassing and inconvenient, and might have economic implications if it went on for a while; but a US default on debt could potentially be an international financial disaster.

Why do we keep coming back here time after time? Congress have set ceiling limits to America's national debt since 1917, and have raised it without issue seventy-nine times since 1940, according to CNN's money blog. But now, partly due to a tribalisation of American politics in which the hard-line Republicans have to win points against the Democrats no matter what, and with an obstructionist Republican party in charge of the House, the debt ceiling has become a hostage with which to endlessly extract demands. Republicans counter with the argument that US debt is dangerously high. As of yesterday it stands at $16,738,443,175,473 and 97 cents, which is an impressive figure, though as a proportion of GDP it is by no means the highest among developed economies; many countries, including the UK, are higher, and Japan's is more than double that of the US.

But the Republican party is in a state of internal warfare. One one side are the moderates, who would like a conservative budget but are willing to work with Democrats on a compromise; and on the other are extremists whose loathing for the Obama administration is so great that they would risk a complete government shut-down and a US debt default to score points.

President Obama, for whom this is the fourth year that congressional Republicans have nearly forced the government into crisis, has clearly had enough. He giving a blistering speech in Washington yesterday:
 
“No Congress before this one has ever, ever, in history been irresponsible enough to threaten default, to threaten an economic shut-down, to suggest America not pay its bills, just to try to blackmail a President into giving them some concessions on issues that have nothing to do with a budget.”
 
Boehner, who is in thrall to his caucus, now has to choose between bringing the temporary measure passed by the Senate to a vote in the House, where it would probably pass with a combination of moderate Republican and Democrat votes but which would seriously undermine his position as speaker, or return Republican demands to the bill, which means continuing to face down the possibility of shutting off funding for the government, as well as ignoring the dangerous debt ceiling problem.
 
One ray of hope is that it is starting to look like Republican resolve is fading. “I don't want to be undercutting Boehner, but put it this way: I will not let the government shut down,” one Republican congressman, Peter King, told the New York Times. One possible alternative outcome is an even shorter-term solution than the Senate bill, one that would keep the government open just until the end of the week; keeping the music playing for just that little bit longer.
 
In the end, it seems that the price you pay for a governmental system composed of checks and balances is the risk of total gridlock. What America really needs is a reform of how this entire process occurs, but this is an impossible pipedream.
 
In the meantime, the world just has to hope that Congress can get this dance done and dusted and find a workable solution. Because at some point, the music is going to stop. And the silence will be deafening.
Senator Ted Cruz speaks to reporters after he spoke on the Senate floor for more than 21 hours. Photo:Getty.

Nicky Woolf is a writer for the Guardian based in the US. He tweets @NickyWoolf.

Getty
Show Hide image

Scarred lands: visiting the villages Boko Haram left behind reveals the toxic legacy of terrorism

The progress and challenges of Nigerian communities rebuilding after Boko Haram’s insurgency begins to wane.

“Sometimes it’s when I go to bed that what happened comes back to me.” Two years ago, Boko Haram militants stormed into 23-year-old John Amida’s home late at night in a village in Gwoza, Borno State, northeast Nigeria. Shielding his eyes with his hands from the torchlight saved his life. He shows me the mark in the centre of his forearm where the bullet aimed for his head went instead.

“All my friends were either killed or abducted,” he says. “I don’t try to forget what happened because it’s not possible; it’s with you even when it is not in your mind. The best thing is just to keep on living every day.”

After a broadly effective 18-month military campaign, Boko Haram remains a deadly yet waning force. Many communities once occupied by Boko Haram are now liberated. In Adamawa, just south of Borno, over 630,000 people previously displaced by Boko Haram have returned home.

With them, over 170,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) now live in camps, or – like John and his family – in host communities. He and his family live in a home vacated and lent to them by a local. All over Adamawa, IDPs live in homes shared with residents or given to them temporarily in exchange for help, crops or token sums of rent.

Adamawa is a serene, largely rural, mountainous state. Even deep into the dry season, driving through the roads that cut between its vast countryside, its land is incredibly scenic. But within local communities, in more rural, isolated villages north of the state’s capital, Yola, the picture is more complicated.

Gombi, a small town a few hours’ drive from Yola, was recaptured from Boko Haram in late 2014. Much of what was destroyed in the insurgency – shops and small businesses – have been rebuilt or replaced. The local government buildings have been largely restored. The impact is still visible but, according to locals, decreasingly so.

But in less urban areas, like in Garaha, a village in Adamawa, rebuilt homes sit next to broken, abandoned houses, churches, mosques and buildings blackened by the fires that damaged them. Local government officials say the damage across Adamawa by the insurgency has set the state’s development back by a decade. Funding for rebuilding the state, which local governments complain is insufficient, is concentrated on urban areas.

According to Chief Suleimanu, a traditional ruler in Garaha, mental health issues are widespread but few are financially able to access support. While some people have been able to move on, others are still dealing with the consequences.

“Many couples and families have separated,” he tells me, detailing how in some couples one partner feels attached to their home while the other can’t face returning, or feel there is little to return to.

“The same with the children, some of the young people have gone to bigger cities like Kano or Abuja because of a lack of opportunities.”

Many returnees, who left camps in Cameroon to come back to Adamawa, are from families who have lived in their villages for generations. Their ancestral roots anchor them to their homes because their farmland is their main source of income. Non-agriculture-based industries provide few jobs. For many people, fleeing their homes meant abandoning their livelihoods.

As of 2015, 52 per cent of people in Nigeria lived in rural areas. Their relative isolation is a blessing and a curse. Larger rural spaces provide them with adequate land to cultivate their crops – but it also leaves them exposed.

During Boko Haram attacks on Garaha through to early 2015, there was minimal protection from security forces who often take hours to arrive.

For many people living in rural Adamawa, life is getting harder and easier at the same time. Armed herdsmen, mainly from the Fulani ethnicity have become a greater threat across Nigeria, partly due to tensions between land ownership and cattle grazing.

According to locals, killings by herdsmen have increased this year. But villages are addressing their vulnerability. Armed vigilantes, some of which formed due to the lack of military protection against Boko Haram, are increasing. The police services are often too far away or too under-resourced to protect them. But some vigilantes now have more weapons and vehicles due to help from state services and locals. It is not an ideal solution but it has made places like Garaha safer.

With this new-found relative safety, villagers have begun farming again. With cash grants and donated tools from charities like Tearfund, it has been easier for thousands of people to begin cultivating land. In many villages there are small, lively recreation centres where young people play snooker and watch sport. Many of their places of worship have been rebuilt.

But the situation is grimmer in communities where such charities are not present.  Without resources, state or non-government help, rebuilding is a real challenge.

Adamawa is a state maxing on its credit of hospitality, relative safety and appreciation of agriculture. A recession in Nigeria and a severe food crisis in the northeast have added pressures on returnees and IDPs. Liberated communities will need more help and attention before they truly feel free.

Emmanuel Akinwotu is a journalist based between Lagos and London who writes about Africa, migration, and specialises in Nigeria.