LyrArc Article Gist
This response by experts on transatlantic relations rejects the other view expressed in Zeit Online that the U.S. under Trump remains estranged from Germany and the EU. These experts from the American Institute for German Contemporary Studies, American German Council, and Centers at John Hopkins and Georgetown for German Studies, reject the view that the Trump administration and Germany are that far apart on many issues as it appears from media coverage.  Foremost it points out that civil society relations are sound and growing. About 50 million Americans trace their descent to Germany, including president Trump, much larger to over half the U.S. population considering European descent. Much larger is the sense of a culturally shared future with the European Union, with the nations of Europe including Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the nations of Eastern Europe, and Britain. The civil society relationships run deep in a way that is hardly affected by the Trump administration. Within the Trump administration the policies to Europe these experts remind the reader, are determined by the "adults" in the administration, who are senior members of the administration. This is a crucial point as Trump administration policy is not determined by the president's liking for tweets as much as by senior cabinet members Tillerson at the State Department, Gen. Mattis at Defense, Kelly at the White House, and senior members of Congress including Senators Corker and other senior committee members. This is why Republican Senator Kay Hutchinson was chosen as Ambassador to NATO. It should be noted in this context of German-EU relations in president Trump's first year that there was a period of German disillusionment with president Obama, exacerbated by the NSA spying on German chancellor Merkel and on the EU delegation to the UN, with president Obama's failure to offer any apology. Relations recovered from that low point. No one suggested that there be a German led decoupling of the EU with America at that low point, or at another low point in German-U.S. relations with the setup of American Pershing II nuclear missiles on German soil under the Reagan administration when there were large scale protests.  The American view that the U.S. should not have to shoulder major responsibilities for defense and foreign relations by itself is not new say these experts, and goes back to earlier administrations before Trump.  The experts argue for an active role by Germany with its partners in Europe for defense and foreign relations, which should not be seen as a result of U.S. pressure, only responding to the situation as it has evolved upto this time. Views on immigration are also changing with effort by the EU and Germany, France, to reduce immigration from the source countries in Africa, and the changing perceptions about uncontrolled immigration in Germany and France, say the authors. A coordinated policy towards Russia  is seen as not having changed. And much as a reset in relations was advocated by Obama in the first year of his first term, the current policy of the Trump administration to work with Russia to lower tensions can be seen in the same way say these experts, and not as a fundamental shift in American policy. The deep relationship of Germany and the EU with China is another positive aspect that will also help the U.S. in framing its own policies towards China. The German-American relationship, and the European Union relationship with the U.S.  is seen as basic to the values and interests of the U.S. and Europe. This relationship is too deep and supported by civil society and Congress, the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, by large trade relationships, to be affected by temporary differences under any one administration. Even these differences are part of a larger debate that is part of dialogue on issues in a democratic society, sometimes raucous and loud, and could be welcomed and carefully channelled in constructive ways.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jurio Osawa talks to Toshiba Corp.'s CEO, Norio Sasaki about Toshiba's plans to increase investments in infrastructure businesses, including nuclear energy. Sasaki sees continuing need to use nuclear energy because of limited supplies of oil and gas to meet needs in emerging markets. He sees demand growing for nuclear energy in China, Brazil, India, Turkey and Vietnam. Toshiba owns Westinghouse Electric, a maker of nuclear power equipment, and acquired Landis+Gyr, a Swiss company which makes advanced power meters. Demand for Westinghouses' AP1000 reactors with safety equipment in China is expected to grow from the 4 being built today to 20 in 2020, and 70 in 2030. He says the consumer electronics businesses have suffered because of the strong yen, and for the failure of Japanese companies to taking strong action to improve their competitive position and staying ahead of market trends. At the same time the consumer electronics business generates cash because investment requirements are low compared to infrastructure businesses, which is why Toshiba will continue to operate in profitable parts of the consumer electronics business....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fomer Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says America needs to take up a vigorous foreign policy in his book "Worthy Fights." Both Panetta and Hillary Clinton, and Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Petraeus of the CIA, supported U.S. taking a strong stand in Syria by supporting Syrian opposition forces in the summer of 2011 and were overruled by president Obama and his election advisers because of the approaching 2012 election. Here Mark Landler provides more insights into Hillary Clinton's deeply held belief shared with Panetta that the U.S. had to take strong action where necessary to deter foes, to get into the ring to use Panetta's expression. The U.S. support for action in Libya to support Britain and France comes from the efforts of Clinton, and any lack of followup one of president Obama's errors in foreign policy. In April 2016 president Obama said that he considered his failure to followup in Libya to help the new Libyan government his biggest mistake in his presidency. Here Mark Landler looks at Hillary Clinton's entire career as showing a conviction and belief on the need for action where necessary in the U.S. global engagement. Compared to the bluster of the candidates Trump, Cruz and Sanders, with little experience to back this up in their careers in real estate, law or the Senate , Landler says Clinton is the last remaining hawk. Here he describes Hillary Clinton's contact and empathy for the troops from her trip to the American base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in March 1996. In fact many have forgotten that Yugoslavia is what it is today after the Milosevic years and the ethnic wars with Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, members of the EU and Serbia negotiating to enter EU, because of the bombing campaign taken by Bill Clinton through NATO in 1999 to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and peacemaking following the Bosnian War using diplomat Holbrooke to negotiate the 1995 Dayton Accords. Here Landler describes the meetings with Gen. Keane who pushed for the troop surge that worked in Iraq under president George W. Bush. Clinton supported Keane's proposal made in April 2015, for a no-fly-zone in Syria that would help opposition forces till a settlement could be negotiated. Keane pointed out to Clinton that there was a flaw in Obama's policies- that negotiation would work only if the no-fly-zone was used to support opposition forces. By the end of 2015 Hillary Clinton publicly adopted this position. During a period when Americans are weary of foreign entanglements but understand the need to provide leadership where needed, Hillary Clinton, provides a balance between the pendulum swinging too sharply in one direction in the Bush years and in another direction in the Obama years, says Landler. A view also articulated by Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff for President Clinton during the Bosnian conflict and the Dayton Accords, where the U.S. showed strength of purpose in war and also in negotiating the peace without major entanglements....

LyrArc Article Gist
Considering the fines and sanctions by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, during the time Mary Schapiro headed the organization from 2007 -2008, it did not take a serious watchdog role over the brokerage business that it was expected to supervise. NASD which she formerly headed, and FINRA, did several examinations of the brokerage business of Mr Madoff who ran a$50 billion Ponzi scheme, but failed to find anything wrong. Her agency in 2007 concluded that Madoff's firm had only violated some technical rules. Also fines and sanctions assessed by FINRA declined during the time she headed it. Fines levied by FINRA declined from $148 million in 2005, the year of her predecessor, to $40 million in 2008. Ms. Schapiro headed NASD regulatory arm in 1996, NASD itself in 2006, and FINRA after its creation in 2007. FINRA is a private agency set up by Wall Street to regulate itself. As the prevailing opinion at the time, with the SEC severely understaffed, was that Wall Street could regulate itself, agencies like FINRA had a bigger responsibility than was realized by Ms Schapiro and others. One securities lawyer who represented firms examined by FINRA, says FINRA should at least have asked more questions about the Madoff operation. In a November 2006 speech to the Securites Industry and Financial Markets Association, Mary Schapiro says, "we remain utterly committed to our regulatory mission but we should be also committed to doing no unnecessary harm or restriction to innovation in the industry and markets". Some of the stuff that went on in the name of innovation went against some basics and commonsense, and the failure to follow tested old good financial practices to separate sound innovation from unsound innovation, was a failure of that period. Schapiro's statement seemed to be a contradiction of a severe nature when examined closely, because how could she remain committed 100% to the regulatory mission if she made strong exceptions for innovations whose true logic and effectiveness only time could tell. The element of caution that should be a key part of the regulator's temperament and mental build was entirely missing. See the link to financial regulators in India, and of how this task was handled with that element of caution and skepticism of prevailing opinion. Other failure of FINRA is that it lagged behind state regulators in catching upto the mess resulting in afreeze up of auction rate securites markets. In June and July 2008, Massachusetts and New York securities regulators filed fraud charges against big firms in that matter. Another failure was the failure to look into the mortgage securites that were held in brokerage accounts and see that the valuations of these securites are sound. Finra only filed small cases against Lehman Brothers, with a fine of only $125,000 for failing to keep accurate books and records. As late as May 7, 2008 in speaking at the Financial Services Institute meeting, Schapiro was asked about what FINRA was doing to regulate complex packaged products like mortgage securites. And even though credit rating agencies had by this time been exposed as having failed, Ms Schapiro would only say, according to a financial advisor who asked the question, that "we have credit rating agencies that rate them." A pretty hands off view for a regulator when the cracks in the system were already exposed in mid 2008. Another facet of this is the high levels of compensation especially for a regulator. For her job at FINRA she received pay of $3.1 million a year including $2.5 million in compensation and $615,000 in benefits and deferred pay. In 2007 she also earned $449,000 in cash and stock grants as director of Duke Energy and Kraft Foods. All of which means that it is straining credulity for Obama to suggest that Mary Schapiro is the best person the Democrats could find for this critical job, in which the record has been severely impaired....

LyrArc Article Gist
Citigroup trades March 5, 2009, at intraday price of 97 cents. Its now in the penny stock region.

LyrArc Article Gist
Former German chancellor from the SPD party, Gerhard Schroeder, is interviewed by Rayond Zhong of the WSJ. Here he describes his views on the way Agenda 2010 was implemented in 2003 in Germany to gain public support for changes to Germany's welfare state. He also talks about the eurozone crisis and how Angela Merkel has handled the crisis, and the right approach for an Agenda 2020 for Europe. The interview was made at Schroeder's law office in Hannover, Germany. This is a detailed and exceptional interview by Zhong covering all facets of the eurozone crisis and Germany's response. Schroeder says it was right to give Greece more time to make the reforms, so that the Greek people could see that this path would help in a positive way. In doing this he cites his own experience when as the reforms for Agenda 2010 to make Germany more competitive were taking place- including cuts in spending and lower taxes- he turned down his finance minister Hans Eichel's proposal in 2003 for an additional 20 billion euros in cuts to put Germany in compliance with EU law....

LyrArc Article Gist
An intimate biographical account of new Chinese leader Xi Jinping and his connections with Muscatine Iowa, where he visited as a head of a Chinese farm delegation in 1985. Xi Jinping remembers the trip vivdly and plans to spend time with friends from that visit during a visit to the U.S. in 2012. He spent two nights during that visit in the bedroom of two college age boys of the Dvorchak family. This revealing account of Jinping's life shows that the actual story of his life is quite different from the title of "princelings" or privileged sons of former communist leaders that is suggested by this reference in the media. Because of the volatile nature of Chinese politics, his father Xi Zhongxun, who led communist partisans in the struggle of the pre World War II years, was rehabilitated twice after falling out of favor. The first period was in 1962 and it was not till 1979 when he was fully rehabilitated. During this period which coincides with the growing up period of Xi from 9-26 years of age, Xi experienced many hardships. During the years of the Cultural revoultion Xi was sent at age 15 to Shanxi province where his father had led partisans. He lived there for 7 years in a traditional cave dwelling in the village of Liangjahe doing farm work. He was denied admission to Tsinghua University twice before being accepted in 1974. There he graduated with a degree in organic chemistry. This was followed by three years working as an assistant to Geng Biao, defense minister and a partisan who was a colleague of his father. The next job was deputy Communist party chief of Zhengding county in Hebei province. Iowa Governor Branstad visited Hebei in 1984, and Branstad played host to a animal-feed delegation led by Jinping in 1985- the visit to Muscatine was part of this trip and which Jinping has told others he enjoyed more than his visits to Oregon or California that year. The second time Xinping's father went out of favor was after his criticism of the crackdown of protests at Tienanmen Square. These experiences have given Xinping a confidence and experience in different situations that other Chinese leaders including the current leaders lacked. If Jinping has inherited some characteristics from his father he may also have the courage to take China in a new direction, and make the kind of changes China needs as it shifts away from an export based economy. At the same time rule in China is by consensus of leaders on the communist party's standing committee. His father helped initiate the special economic zone in Guangdong province in 1978, and Xi Xinping held senior posts in the provinces of Fujian and Zhejiang and in Shanghai, giving him close ties with industry and local government in areas that led the export based economy. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore puts Jinping in the" class of Nelson Mandela type leaders, who has great emotional stability to not let his personal misfortunes and sufferings cloud his personal judgement." Of political positions Jinping has a certain wariness. He once responded to mention of him as the potential leader with the words: "Are you trying to give me a fright."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Email exchanges between OMB staffers and Obama administration officials, released exclusively to the Washington Post, show the Obama administration urging the OMB to speed up its decision on the half a billion dollar loan to Solyndra. This was part of stimulus funds to the solar industry. Solyndra was a favorite of the Obama administration according to the Washington Post, and aides to Rahm Emmanuel and other officials sent emails urging speeding up approval. OMB officials in their replies stated they were under pressure. One email by a senior OMB staffer sent to McSweeney, Biden's domestic policy advisor, Aug 31, 2009, said: "we have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week)... we would prefer to have sufficient time to do our diligence reviews." Other emails referred to "the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra," and indicated "there isn't time to negotiate." Solyndra had large investments by the funds operated for the family foundation of George Kaiser, an Obama fundraiser....

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times reports that comments from Obama administration officials describe an alarming loss of trust and confidence between China and the USA over the last two years. David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy program at George Washington University, says the administration had hoped to work with China on major challenges like climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and a new global economic order. China, he says, has failed to step up and play that role. He describes the Chinese as responding as an increasingly narrow-minded, self-interested truculent, hyper-nationalist, and powerful country. Jeffrey Baker, a key China policy adviser in the White House, says China's responses reflected a sense in Beijing that China was a rising power and the USA a declining power, especially after the strong rebound of the Chinese economy after the 2008 crisis. The administration is determined to counteract that impression. Other factors complicate things. China is facing a transition to a new leadership in the next year. There are differences within the Chinese Communist party leadership ranks about the direction China should take. Trade and currency issues have come to the point where American public opinion is shifting greatly, with educated professionals changing their views on trade and currency matters. See the recent WSJ/NBC September 2010 poll on world trade, reported by Murray and Belkin in WSJ, Oct 2, 2010. The Obama administration cannot ignore the deep concerns of the American people on these issues. The House overwhelmingly voted in September to threaten China with tariffs on its exports if the Chinese currency, the renminbi, is not allowed to appreciate significantly enough (experts estimate that it is overvalued by 20%). It is not clear whether the Administration's rhetoric on this issue is to assuage public opinion in a business as usual manner, or expected to achieve substantative results to rebalance world trade. The G-20 summit in S. Korea leaves this change for well into the future- China with current account surplus of 5.8% of GDP in 2009 is expected to lower this to 4% by 2015. With the high jobless rate in the US and the large and rising current account deficit, the United States may have reached a juncture where this cannot be put off well into the future years. Other issues, the different foreign policy objectives, and differing perceptions of China and the US of each other, the relationship with US allies in the region, may create additional tensions. These tensions may be navigated by governments of both countries, but the shift in American public opinion on trade, currency and jobs issues will require tangible and real change. As trade tensions will only increase in the next two years with the lack of fiscal stimulus on the jobs front, and no significant change in jobs expected from the Fed's purchase af additional Treasury debt, and a sense that the mutual benefit in the trade relationship with China has been lost to America's serious detriment. China's position may be perceived as stronger than it really is from the faster rebound from the 2008 crisis, and may in reality not be as Jeffrey Baker sees it. As David Barboza has reported in the New York Times, and experts have pointed out, the huge amount of lending encouraged by the government has accentuated weaknesses in the Chinese economy. A significant amount has gone into real estate speculation and will only increase the bad loans on the books of China's banks. This happens at the very time that growth is expected to slow down and make it harder to absorb the bad loans, as was done in the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Joseph Stiglitz describes policies and programs of the Obama administration that favor banks and avoid a government takeover of over leveraged and badly managed banks in the U.S. President Obama's policy transfers financial assets to banks on highly favorable terms even though some of the banks made bad decisions and highly overleveraged assets creating the 2008 global financial crisis. The policies avoid a government takeover of banks, policies which the U.S. aggressively pushed for in other countries such as S. Korea during the 1997 financial crisis with Rubin, Summers and Geithner at Treasury. These policies would come under strong criticism because it rewarded risk taking and kept in place an incentive system that led to such behaviours- creating "heads I win, tails you lose" psychology. It also delinks the performance-reward relationship that is the basis of free enterprise in western economies. A problem that would be left from the crisis and the Obama administration's response to it is "Too-Big-To-Fail," with banks larger than before. The FDIC and U.S. Fed's plans for banks to have living wills for an orderly windup under Dodd-Frank legislation only goes a part of the way in tackling this problem. In the U.S., and in Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, the related problem of high bonuses continues into 2014, with RBS bank in Britain one of the egregious examples and highly unpopular with the British public. The lack of similiar government help to homeowners, advocated by Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein and FDIC chairwoman Sheila Bair from the beginnings of the crisis stands in sharp contrast to the response of the Obama administration. See the links for Barr, Feldstein and Hoenig. In an ultimate irony from the crisis handling much of the damage from foreclosures was done to minorities which supported the administration. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Thomas Frank writing about the public outrage about executive compensation quotes Bill Black, a Professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who makes an important point. Beyond the size of this compensation there was something else happening that was perverse in its design and in its effects. Black says that at each point in the development of the disaster of mortgage securitization, it was the pay for performance systems that sent the wrong signals to loan officers, real estate appraisers, accountants, and bond rating agencies. The compensation or reward systems actually encouraged wrong, unethical and ultimately disastrous behaviours for the companies and the economy. Another way to look at it, the way it happened on Wall Street- especially at Merrill Lynch and some other financial institutions- the bonuses and other compensation was a way for executives to recklessly milk (loot is the other word) the companies for all they could yield regardless of the results afterwards. And as Black says, to do this through normal corporate mechanisms. A whole range of behaviours of this type took place in the final years of the boom. See other articles by Thomas Frank. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ireland went off the cliff by taking enormous unregulated loans. The banks lent money freely and the regulators simply ignored the bubble that was developing through the last decade. The speculators, developers, bankers and regulators all let the bubble reach astounding proportions. One developer got a $6.3 million loan on a personal guarantee without meeting his banker. One 1000 square foot Dublin carraige house went for 3 million euros in an auction. One of the developers, Simon Kelly, says that everything was funded by the Germans through the European Central Bank. The sale of the Jury's hotel in 2005 resulted in the amazing price of 60 to 70 million euros per acre. Ireland's GDP which was $25 billion in the 1980's, reached $267 billion in 2008. The boom that was initially based on export competitiveness and the low corporate tax rate combined with an educated English speaking workforce, was followed by a speculative boom in real estate financed by Irish banks, where regulators simply looked aside and placed no controls on lending. To get an idea how the government looked at anyone who raised a red flag, look at this quote from Bertie Ahern, prime minister of Ireland from 1997 to 2008, who said at a trade union conference: "sitting on the sidelines cribbing and moaning is a lost opportunity. I don't know how people who engage in that don't commit sucide." And this coming from an Irish politician who helped in arranging the Irish peace accords with the help of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The risks of such uncontrolled speculation in real estate was lost on regulators, the government, and politicians. And the bankers stopped paying attention to their loans, with everyone wanting to lend money to 10-15 deveopers who were able to drive the market. The regulator at the central bank simply didn't pay much attention to the reports he received every quarter about the lending. Now the average household in Ireland owes 132,000 to the banks, according to David McWilliams of the Central Bank of Ireland, and unemployment is at 14%. If the Irish had completely lost track of the picture, what about the German and British banks that loaned money to Ireland? Why was money being made so freely available to Ireland. One Irishman says getting a mortgage in those days was like getting cupcakes. With prices haveing reached the stratosphere at 60 million euros an acre, were the European banks also pushing money into Ireland beyond the ability of a small country like Ireland to repay? According to the Bank for International Settlements based in Basel, Switzerland, Ireland owes $139 billion to German banks and $132 billion to British banks. Easy money was also available from US banks for countries such as Argentina which suffered similar crisis in prior decades. Banking crises ocurred in Asian countries in the 1980's. Much of this experience was lost in the manner German, British and other European banks loaned money to countries such as Iceland, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The Asian banking crises of the 1980's are being followed by European banking crises over two decades later. The ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about how Mr Geithner has handled his job at the New York Fed and at Treasury during the bailouts of financial firms. Were there close relationships with bankers, hedge fund managers, and others that compromised the Fed's ability to regulate the financial industry? Why was Geithner advocating loosening standards for the reserves financial institutions have to hold to insure against potential future losses, as late as 2007? Inherent in the design of the job of New York Fed President was a conflict of interest, as the institution is supposed to be a watchdog over the financial industry, but the President of the NY Fed reports to a board that is comprised of the heads of banks and financial instituitons. These financial leaders also participate in the selection of the new President. Geithner was a quick learner and a listener, who asked questions, but he was an outsider coming from work at AID, the IMF and Treasury. He is described by one bank executive Sanford Weill as "a baby face," and lacked experience in dealing with the financial industry. He was brought in by Rubin and Summers, two mentors at Treasury. These two had close ties to the financial industry, and did not question practices of overleveraging and risk taking in the financial industry. Was it too much to ask of Geithner, under the circumstances, that he would rock the boat and ask the tough questions about risk and leveraging. On the other hand did he miss things completely when he was asking for even looser capital standards for banks in 2007, less than a year before the crisis hit, which were never adopted. And was he too close to the financial industry and aggressive in the wrong sort of way when advocating in a meeting as President of the New York Fed, that the government back up all the debt in the financial system. Did he too casually overlook the conditions that could easily be put in place for the government to be able to recover some of the money put into the bailouts. And was he too close to Goldman Sachs, that he brought Goldman in for advice in the AIG bailout, even though there were conflicts of interest and money that would never be recovered from the $182 billion bailout of AIG, some of which went to banks including Goldman. If Geithner had seen some of the problems in risk taking why had he not supported FDIC's Bair in her opposing view for capital reserves, and government conditions on bailouts that enabled some recovery of capital put into failing financial institutions. And did he get too close to Citi, that at one point Sanford Weill tried to bring him in as CEO even when he was already President of the New York Fed. Does it go to show that -the very idea that this was even possible- the design of the New York Fed with the President reporting to the Board of the very same bank presidents that he was supposed keep in check, makes for an incomprehensible position of regulation at odds with the structure of reporting and selection....

LyrArc Article Gist
Sheila Bair releases her new book in Sept 2012 on the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the efforts to introduce financial reforms for a safer financial system: "Bull By the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street from Wall Street and Wall Street from Itself." She is particularly critical of U.S. Treasury Secretary, and former head of the New York Federal Reserve, Timothy Geithner, as protecting the interests of Citigroup and Wall Street in his position as Treasury Secretary of the U.S. government. She describes in detail the situations in which Geithner tried to water down essential reforms to the financial system to make it safer, including the Volcker Rule. Of particular concern is the revolving door by which banking regulators or government officials join banks after service in the government which leads to weakening of regulatory and government oversight and systemic risks as in 2008-2009. Sheila Bair is widely respected for her efforts during the financial crisis from 2008 to 2011, when she headed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC. Her active involvement in defending reforms and setting up the system by which financially failing banks could be taken over and unwound without risks to the U.S. financial system are lasting contributions. She also succeeded as a manager by setting up an experienced and effective successor in Martin Gruenberg as head of the FDIC, to continue this work. A former Congresswoman, she describes herself as a Republican populist from Kansas. Her current role is as senior advisor to the Pew Charitable Trusts, which itself is a rare phenomenon today for a senior government official leaving government....

LyrArc Article Gist
Journalists of the Economist magazine describe the EU's problems and the British perspective on the issues facing the European Union.

LyrArc Article Gist
The British parliament defeated a measure put forward by prime minister Cameron for military response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria in August 2013. The vote against British intervention was 285 to 272 with members of his own party and Liberals voting against the measure. The case put forward by Cameron was based on humanitarian grounds, and to prevent the use of chemical weapons in the future. Under pressure from politicians from all parties Cameron decided to put this to a vote in parliament following a debate on Aug. 29, 2013. In calling for the vote Cameron said he was deeply mindful of the deep concerns about Britain's intervention in Iraq in 2003.