| 30.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We recently wrote here about the battle for influence within the McCain campaign between neoconservatives and realists. How deep the rift and how intense the struggle between the two Republican camps is exemplified by an open letter to Sarah Palin by the editors of The American Conservative magazine. The letter, dripping with disdain for John McCain and well-known neoconservative figures, in a sarcastic tone, lists the main foreign policy grievances realists have with George W. Bush and his neoconservative agenda. Here are a few of them: Russia: - Realists don't think the U.S. and Russia are headed for a repeat of the Cold War. They feel that Russia's behavior doesn't constitute a major threat to the U.S. - "Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It's a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage." - "Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been." Middle East: -"Israel's problem isn't external threat so much as internal security and demographics." -"The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst — to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed." -"The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict." Iran: -"Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them." -"Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America." Towards the end of the letter, the writers directly appeal to Sarah Palin to eschew the neoconservative agenda: "You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they'll tell you this alien vision — imported from the Left — is coherent and conservative." Sure, The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, is not the official mouthpiece of realism. And some of the specific points made in the letter, i.e. the stance toward Israel, will be considered too extreme and won't be shared by other outlets with a realist bent. Nevertheless the main thrust of the letter provides an interesting insight into the fierce struggle that is waging within the Republican party. The outcome of this fight for the soul of the GOP will definitely have consequences for the future of the Republican party and possibly the world. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Generally, Sarah Palin’s lack of national office experience has been catching her heat ever since she took the vice president slot for the GOP, but specifically, it is her lack of foreign policy experience that has drawn the most criticism. Her recent answers on that subject in interviews has really brought about an incredible amount of blowback from unexpected sources – and unless there are some miracle workers in the McCain camp, it’s just going to get worse after Thursday’s debate against foreign policy specialist Joe Biden. The new criticism from the right is fairly well-documented. But some less partisan analysts have recently loosed their tongues upon Palin, too. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria called her comments about Russia vis-à-vis Alaska “gibberish,” said they were marked by “absurdity” and said John McCain’s pick of her betrayed that he did not, in this instance, put “country first.” My CQ colleague Jeff Stein offered: “It’s clear now, as if we needed more proof, that Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue about the world beyond the Bering Straight. Or if she does, she can’t express it.” The Associated Press revisited her Russia remarks, and came up with this: “A stumbling interview with CBS's Katie Couric last week in which Palin equated her state's proximity to Russia with foreign policy experience may have been her defining moment so far.” Ouch. But that’s just dealing with Couric, who did a good job in the interview but was rather non-confrontational. What’s going to happen when she’s being asked even tougher questions, requiring even greater foreign policy knowledge, and for comparison’s sake, answers to the same questions come from the gaffe-prone, but encyclopedic, brain of Biden? Maybe it's just that the focus on her mistakes is sharper because she's done so few interviews, as McCain surrogate Mitt Romney theorized. But if she falls short at the debate, it could get very rough from here on out. Here's how serious it is -- George Stephanopoulos of ABC goes so far as to say this: "A major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The global financial turmoil produces many losers, but also some winners. With the American banking sector currently melting down, it is hardly surprising that some commentators view the U.S. as the biggest loser in this crisis. Frank Herold is one of them. In a guest editorial for Russia's RIA Novosti (in German), Herold, an editor with Berliner Zeitung, argues that as a result of the turmoil, there will be a realignment of the global power structure. To be sure, Herold feels that it is premature to sing the swan song for the U.S., but he thinks the time of American global hegemony, at least for the foreseeable future, is over. Possible beneficiaries of the crumbling old world order, according to Herold, are China, but also Iran, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the U.S. preoccupied with itself, who is supposed to keep Iran, Chavez and the Taliban in check, asks Herold. But the most interesting aspect of Herold's analysis is that he proclaims Europe one of the major winners in the international power reshuffle: It doesn't matter who wins the election and becomes president, McCain or Obama. Whoever it is will have to seek common ground with Europe – and not with a particular European country - a position that George W. Bush felt was good enough - but with Europe as a supranational power, writes Herold. Hence, Herold argues, after the failure of the Bush model, it is now the up to the Europeans, who rightfully have complained for a long time about American unilateralism and hubris, to confidently present their solutions for the global challenges the West is facing. According to Herold, the financial crisis has brought the EU closer together and is in itself a convincing argument that the kind of integration the EU provides is necessary. Europe is back, writes Herold and warns that everyone who doesn't recognize that fact misjudges the signals of the current crisis. That goes for the U.S., but also Russia, who's foreign policy instincts, states Herold, were no less "American," than those of the U.S. While Herold's analysis that the U.S. is weakened by the financial crisis sounds plausible, his deduction that therefore Europe is one of its biggest beneficiaries isn't. Politics isn't a zero-sum game. Just because, the U.S. loses some of its global stature doesn't necessarily translate into European gains. (Yesterday's historic election results of the CSU and the SPD in Bavaria proved that point.) If the EU's economic and foreign policy, as well as its structural fundamentals haven't changed - and they haven't - then why should Europe be in a better position now then a few weeks ago? What's more, the assumption that Europe, through this crisis, has become more cohesive, for the time being is just that – an assumption that hasn't been put to the test. As far as the next U.S. president is concerned though, Herold is right. Whether it is Obama or McCain, he will have to seek common ground with Europe. Not necessarily because Europe is so much stronger than before, but because compared to all the other global players, Europe is simply the best option. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The right is calling Barack Obama a flip-flopper after his statement during Friday night’s debate that “I actually believe we need missile defense.” The truth is a little more subtle than any charge of a flagrant flip-flop that took life that evening, but either way, Obama’s position has apparently shifted over time, and his current stance raises some questions. At one point, anyway, it appeared that Obama opposed missile defense entirely. Back in 2001, he said, according to a quote from a television station that the John McCain campaign rustled up: “I, for example, don't agree with a missile defense system.” That’s the only quote from the interview I’ve been able to find – what he said before or after that, and in what context, is not readily available. But for as far back as I can discern other than that remark, Obama has primarily taken a skeptical view of missile defense, not a “no way, no how” view of missile defense. Almost all of his statements have indicated he does not oppose missile defense in theory. But he has favored cutting spending on missile defense – “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” he said in February – and has opposed deployment of missile defense infrastructure in Europe until certain conditions are met. “The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles,” he said in July of last year when the Polish president visited. “If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.” Between those two statements lies the following question: Given the billions that have been spent on missile defense so far and that fact that the United States still has no working shield, how will cutting missile defense spending increase the chances of producing a system that works? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| There were plenty of things to fact check from Friday evening’s presidential debate on foreign policy, but one where the fact-checkers seemed to come down in a couple different directions was Barack Obama’s claim about Henry Kissinger’s views on meeting with Iran. My reading is that this Marc Ambinder breakdown has it right. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| So who won the debate, John McCain or Barack Obama? Neither of them is the answer, if you ask how the international media reacted to the first presidential debate, even though some political analysts give Obama a slight edge. "A clear tie" headlines Germany's business magazine Wirtschaftswoche, and comments that both McCain and Obama came across surprisingly bland during the TV debate. One of the reasons for their rather dreary performance was that both wanted to avoid mistakes. The question which of them will be the next president remains open - although Obama is likely to benefit more from the financial crisis than his opponent, writes Wirtschaftswoche. Poland's Rzeczpospolita (via dradio.de) argues along the same lines. Obama presented himself slightly better on economic issues, even though McCain gave a better answer to the question which concrete steps should be taken to solve the financial crisis: To freeze government spending with the exception of some key areas. But generally McCain and Obama talked as though the many dramatic events of the past few days simply hadn't happened. "McCain seemed like an old, experienced sheriff, Obama like a handsome university professor who is open for alternative views," says Rzeczpospolita. "The debate only confirmed that both candidates can contribute nothing substantial to the discussion about the financial crisis," argues Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Both stuck to their old rhetoric, despite the fact that the crisis has thwarted their budget plans. Where foreign policy was concerned, McCain – as expected - managed to put his opponent on the defense. Repeatedly Obama was accused of being naive and inexperienced without being able to effectly counter the charges. But the Democratic nominee stuck it out and appeared presidential. Since there were no gaffes or big mishaps, the effect of the debate on the race will probably be negligable. This helps Obama who leads in the polls and has taken another hurdle on his path to the White House, writes the Swiss paper. "McCain needed to win, but he couldn't pull it off," German communications expert Frank Brettschneider told DPA. Obama was well prepared and on foreign policy topics came across better than he had until now. McCain merely relied on characterizing Obama as inexperienced. "That is simply not good enough," said Brettschneider, who teaches at Hohenheim university near Stuttgart. All in all, Brettschneider saw the debate ending with a slight advantage for Obama. Dutch communications specialist Eliane Schoonman agrees that Obama did better in the debate: Obama explained in great detail how the financial crisis has been created by the Republicans, how it affects the ordinary Americans and how he, Barack Obama, is going to solve the problem. McCain did better discussing the war in Iraq, casting himself as a war hero intent on winning, she told Dutch broadcaster RNW. So who won? As the debate mostly dealt with security, McCain's key issue, he should have won. Everything, though, points to a victory for Obama, who thus extends his lead over McCain, Schoonman was quoted by RNW. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| After two days of uncertainty about the first presidential debate, John McCain finally said "Yes I can." So the event is on and we can all watch McCain and Barack Obama square off against each other on foreign policy, but probably even more on the financial crisis. Tim already laid out a way to do justice to both topics. But the big question is: Do the debates even matter? Tom Holbrooke, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, argues in his blog (via scienceblogs.de) that debates usually don't have much influence in the outcome of the presidential election. His prediction for the current debate: "I don't expect to see large swings in candidate support following the individual debates, barring something really spectacular happening. However, even relatively small shifts in the same direction over the three debates could make this relatively tight race even tighter (if the shifts favor McCain), or could blow it open (if the shifts favor Obama)." Ross Barker, a political scientist at Rutgers, agrees that "debates aren't do or die". Others disagree. Alan Schroeder, author of "Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High-Risk TV", told Bloomberg that the McCain-Obama debates are very different than previous debates and therefore may have a greater impact on the race. And Dan Balz in the Washington Post makes the case using historical examples, that debates are in fact "enormously important." Who's right? We can all be the judge. Let's just wait, watch the debates, and see if there are major shifts in the polls afterwards. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It’s still up in the air, this foreign policy debate scheduled for Friday evening between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, owing to McCain’s campaign-suspending maneuver in light of the economic crisis. Yesterday, I shared some questions from Council on Foreign Relations experts on foreign policy that could keep the candidates focused on the topic of the economy, if that’s the primary concern these days. Today, here are some more, from Foreign Policy: --Should the United States continue its embargo against Cuba? --Would you be willing to cut farm subsidies to allow the Doha Round of trade negotiations to proceed? --Do you support the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, which would allow the United States to provide civil nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country that hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty? --How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States’ growing economic interdependence with that country? Also today, a liberal interest group distributed to my mailbox and others this interview with economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that the war in Iraq “broke the camel’s back” in making our economy worse – higher gas prices, a chain reaction by the Fed, the budget deficit the war exacerbated, etc. There are questions available to both candidates about how much they think the war affected the economy and what they’d do about it. That I know the answer to some of the above questions (on India, both would answer “yes;” on Cuba, McCain would answer “no” and Obama would answer “just here and there,” a reversal of his previous position of "yes") is beside the point. The point is that there are plenty of joint foreign policy-economy-style questions available, and really, over the last two days, what I've passed along is just the tip of the iceberg. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Just before Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this summer, the German weekly Die Zeit reported via a press release and a follow-up article that the Democratic presidential candidate has German ancestors. According to the paper, Christian Gutknecht, Obama's grandfather six generations back emigrated with his wife from the Alsatian village of Bischweiler to the U.S. There, he changed his name to Goodknight and died in Germantown, Pennsylvania in 1795. This is not Obama's only ancestral relation to Germany, reported Die Zeit. Another line dates back to 1616 and the German city of Heilbronn. According to the paper, after Kenian (50 percent) and English (37,7 percent) roots, Obama's German (4,68 percent) roots take third place in his ancestorial make-up. But then yesterday, Swiss largest paper Blick said not so fast, and headlined an article on Obama's ancestry with the following: "Swiss blood runs through Obama's veins." The paper, refering to an interview by AFP with the archivist of Bischweiler, now Bischwilller, writes that Obama's ancestor Christian Gutknecht was probably a Swiss immigrant who had moved to Eschweiler. According to the archivist, Gutknecht had lived in a street in the Alsatian village that was built especially for Swiss immigrants. Many other Swiss outlets carried the story as well. So is Obama more Swiss than German? And if so, does it matter? And what would that mean for his foreign policy positions via Germany and Switzerland? As soon as someone tackles these difficult issues, you can read about right here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| As of this writing, it’s completely unclear whether there will be a foreign policy-oriented presidential debate Friday night, as previously planned. But if economic woes are the predominant concern, there are plenty of questions for the candidates on the foreign policy front that have an economic angle. At a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington this week, a group of foreign policy experts offered up the following debate questions along those lines, per ABCNews.com: --With the United States' power around the world largely built on its economic influence, how does the current U.S. financial market crisis affect U.S. power in the world? --With the bailouts of Wall Street giants likely to increase the massive U.S. deficit and foreign entities buying up a large chuck of that debt, what do you see as some of the foreign policy consequences of foreign entities buying U.S. debt? --What's the sustainability of foreign entities investing in the U.S. at a time when the U.S. markets seem to be in so much trouble? --Do you think that climate change and energy issues should be treated as separate issues? If not, how are they related? Of the 13 questions ABCNews.com conveyed, four had an economic angle, and they didn’t even get into international trade. And even if these specific questions aren’t asked, it’s hard to imagine that the economic angle on foreign policy won’t be explored. That is, if the debate happens at all. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain with its focus on foreign policy and national security is garnering huge international attention. For campaign aficionados anywhere in the world who don't mind getting up early, or staying up late, that is good news because you'll almost certainly can watch the debate live. Here's a sampling of international media outlets that will carry the proceedings from the campus of the University of Mississippi: -CNN International -CNN Espanol -BBC -Telemundo -France 24 -ARD -ZDF In addition, the Campaign on Presidential Debates (CPD) and Myspace.com have teamed up to create a special online platform, where users can watch a live stream of the debates, and also interact with each other. You can check it out here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The two candidates began prepping Tuesday for their first debate later this week, on the topic of foreign policy. So clearly that favors John McCain, war veteran, long-time senator, Armed Services Committee guru, right? Except there’s a case to be made that it benefits Barack Obama, too. The case for McCain is offered by the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, here. It goes: “The debate this Friday at Ole Miss presents McCain an opportunity to go on offense. While the nation is focused on its financial future, the two candidates will square off on foreign policy. If McCain has a comfort zone, this is it. The bombing at the U.S. embassy in Yemen on Sept. 17 and the massive hotel bombing in Pakistan on Sept. 20 -- both during the worst week in recent U.S. economic history -- are stark reminders of the dangerous world America inhabits. McCain could still retake control of the conversation.” The case for Obama is offered by presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, at ABCNews.com. It goes: “As we saw last week Obama has a clear advantage on the economy issues, so if he can diffuse the national security issue, which has been Sen. McCain’s strong suit, then I think going into the home stretch he probably establishes a clear if small advantage overall.” In other words, better to get McCain’s strength out of the way sooner, so Obama can focus on his own strengths when it matters most – just before voters hit the polls. Smith, it must be noted, offered the case for both Obama and McCain. Which goes to show how easy it is to see both interpretations as plausible. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama did Europe and the Middle East in a week to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Sarah Palin, in a political speed dating effort, will meet with nine international leaders in less than 30 hours without even leaving the U.S. Both Obama's whirlwind jet-setting tour and Palin's meet-and-greet with foreign leaders, show how serious a qualification international experience is for both campaigns. Sure, Obama received some great media coverage and photo opportunties from his trip. Sarah Palin will also come out of those meetings with foreign leaders with at least some good shake-hands pictures. But really, how much better equipped to deal with foreign policy are Obama and Palin after their respected ventures into global affairs? How much more do they know than they did before? Probably not that much. This is not to say that Obama's trip and Palin's New York meetings were in vain. Let's just take them for what they are - highly choreographed efforts to showcase to voters and the media that the candidate is suited for the world stage. Neither Obama nor Palin are now all of a sudden foreign policy experts. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Both sides are casting blame on the other for the flap over whether Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and/or a representative of Barack Obama’s campaign would attend an anti-Iran rally in New York Monday. That’s fine, because there’s plenty of blame to go around. Clinton was the original guest, but when organizers learned that Palin would be in New York around the date of the rally, they invited her, too. It is around here that the maneuvering began – liberal critics of inviting Palin saw political motives among organizers in boosting the John McCain-Palin ticket with Jewish voters (not to mention family ties between the two camps), and when Clinton abruptly pulled out of the event following Palin’s invitation, conservative critics savaged her for putting politics ahead of an important protest. The Obama campaign arranged to have a surrogate, Rep. Robert Wexler, attend. But by the time that happened, several liberal-leaning Jewish groups had begun a protest of Palin’s appearance, figuring she would outshine anyone from Obama's campaign other than her vice-presidential equivalent, Joe Biden, and Palin was out. The fallout was swift. Some of the liberal-leaning groups were pleased when Palin was disinvited, a move the organizers said they were forced to make if they wanted the event to be devoid of politics. A local New York station reported that some unnamed Democrats threatened the organizers' tax exempt status if Palin spoke, infuriating the right. Said one of the groups involved about the whole mess: “Sen. Clinton’s appearance at a rally with Gov. Palin would have sent a strong message to Ahmadinejad and his cronies – that Americans understand the threat and stand together against it. Instead we have divided ourselves in front of it." Clearly the rally organizers did not consider all the ramifications of inviting a former Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican vice presidential candidate to their event in the stretch run of a heated campaign. But given how much Democrats have made this year about their confidence on foreign policy in this election, it is strange that Clinton didn't stay put or that the liberal-leaning groups didn't relent in their pressure to disinvite Palin once the Obama camp was prepared to send Wexler. There really wasn’t any good way for this to end; once Palin was invited and Clinton pulled out, the rally was doomed to get wrapped up in the 2008 campaign, no matter what organizers did after that. Still, the rally drew thousands, according to news reports, even without Palin, Clinton or anyone else. It’s hard to believe the rally wouldn’t have been bigger had Palin and/or Clinton attended, but the publicity over the feud surely won it more attention than an anti-Iran rally might have gotten otherwise. And if you get curious about what Palin and Clinton might have said, my old paper, The New York Sun, obtained the remarks they might have delivered. You can read them here and here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It doesn't look like the financial turmoil emanating from the U.S. is going away anytime soon. Instead the malaise that was triggered by the housing bubble in the U.S. has spread around the world. Obviously the meltdown on Wall Street will also have an impact on the presidential race. The blame game is already in full swing between Barack Obama and John McCain. Who's fault is the crisis anyway and who is better equipped to lead the world out of it, McCain or Obama, Democrats or Republicans? And of course it is not just the U.S. media that play referee in the blame game. Global media outlets also have their take on whether McCain or Obama will be hurt by or benefit from the crisis. For an overview of international English-language opinion on the issue, check out the Nieman Watchdog. There are however some interesting takes on the blame game that are not published in English, so here we go: "Monday, September 14, the day the American markets crashed, should mark a turning point in the election campaign", writes the French daily Liberation (via AFP). McCain in the end supported the plan to save AIG after having rejected it the previous day. McCain basically wants to continue the course of his predecessor, opines Liberation and adds: Government is not a dirty word for Obama. But so far the Democratic candidate couldn't convince voters that he is better suited to fulfill the expectations Americans have, writes the French paper and argues that the financial crisis is the best example for the price that must be paid for Republican laisser-faire policies. According to Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Obama benefits from the turmoil on Wall Street even though he is no financial expert and his remarks on the situation were rather simplifying. But for a long time Obama has called for stronger oversight over financial markets, a demand that is hard to counter after recent events, writes the paper. Another advantage for Obama is the fact that the economy is now the dominant topic and that - righly or wrongly - voters feel that the Democrats are better equipped to deal with this issue. The German weekly Die Zeit agrees: "Traditionally Democrats are considered to be the party that is better on economic policy." Until now, however, Obama has not been able to profit from this sentiment. He has not proven that he can emphasize with the worries of the man on the street as Bill Clinton did in his time. One of Obama's problems on the campaign trail has been that he appears intellectual and aloof. While the crisis on Wall Street is eating up the savings of working class, Obama should should lay out his remedy. But exactly on that point he has fallen short so far, opines Die Zeit and sums up: "The political environment favors Obama - but he must seize the opportunity." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A few months ago, there were some news reports about the internal struggle within John McCain's campaign between realists/pragmatists and neoconservatives/idealists. Recent events, though, have led some commentators to conclude that the struggle’s over, and the neocons have won. Three of these events happened in the past week. First, Henry Kissinger urged the next president to meet with the leader of Iran without preconditions, as Barack Obama had said he would do. This is the same Henry Kissinger who had been seen as one of the top realist advisers to McCain. Second, McCain apparently reversed a previous stance when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain, and one plausible explanation is that this was a deliberate slight because of his Iraq troop withdrawal. Third, neocon advisers have reportedly taken the lead in the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin. It’s not just been this week, of course. As Michael wrote, one recent analysis is that hawks within McCain’s camp pushed him to take a harsher line against Russia. In fact, it’s hard to find many headlines McCain has made these days for any foreign policy position that might be categorized as realist. ThinkProgress’s M. Duss wrote: “Hopefully, Kissinger’s statement will put to rest the idea that McCain’s foreign policy brain trust is divided between realists and neocons, which I’ve long argued is nonsense. McCain is a committed neoconservative, and has been for years.” Democracy Arsenal’s Adam Blickstein wrote: “McCain is not only an outlier, if he were part of the Bush administration, he would have already been marginalized and rendered irrelevant like the rest of the anachronistic and dangerous neocon cult.” Granted, those two commentaries come from the left, which has an incentive to push the line that McCain is a neocon – not the most popular designation these days. But it’s worth wondering whether their basic argument right. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to show how people outside the U.S. think about the presidential election and the candidates. Regular readers of this blog know of course that judging by opinion polls, the whole world clearly wants Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. So, case closed? Not really. Polls, as every politician and every pollster will attest to, never tell the entire story. They are also not necessarily a good indicator of what is in the interest of the people participating in these surveys, as poll takers and voters don't always act rationally and choose the option that is in their or their country's best interest. So when a leading German business magazine, a Canadian broadcaster and a Finnish EU parlamentarian asked whether John McCain or Barack Obama is better for Germany, Canada and the EU, we'll tell you about it right here. Let's start with the German business magazine Capital, which headlines a lengthy piece (in German) on Obama and McCain, "Who is better for Germany?" According to Capital, it is not only Herr Müller or Frau Schmidt who prefer Obama over McCain, but also Germany's business leaders: Two-thirds of them, says a Capital survey, want Obama as the next president because they think the Democratic candidate would be better for Germany. But they are wrong, conclude the authors of the Capital article. With one possible exception – climate change – a president McCain would be better for Germany on every business-related issue, i.e., free trade, subsidies, currency policy. And even on climate change, Obama is not the clear favorite since his plan for the 'greening' of U.S. automakers will be achieved through subsides for American companies like General Motors and Ford. This, says Capital, will hurt German automakers. When it comes to free trade, Obama wants to renegotiate current trade agreements. What's more, writes Capital, the Democrats are not particularly fond of foreign companies. "There are repeated efforts to increase our taxes," Capital quotes an unnamed U.S. head of a major German company. "Almost always they are brought on by Democrats." On foreign policy, Obama is pretty much a blank slate, while McCain knows Europe and is also well known there, argues Capital. McCain is a regular at Munich's Security Conference and his advisor for transatlantic relations, Richard Burt, was ambassador to Germany from 1985 to 1989. However, there is some anxiety in German business circles about McCain's hard-line approach toward Russia. While McCain wants Russia thrown out of the G8, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce warn against isolating Russia. In sum, writes Capital, an Obama victory in November would lead to dissappointment, and not only where matters of international business are concerned. Many Germans have not gotten the message that - like McCain - Obama will push for a greater international role for Germany, e.g., more German troops and money for Afghanistan. "Under Obama, there will be more complications in transatlantic relations than many people expect," the magazine quotes Eberhard Sandschneider, Director of the German Council on Foreign Relations. Interestingly, an article by Canada's CTV, asks "Who would be the best for Canada: McCain or Obama?" and comes to similar conclusions: "On pocketbook issues, the sensible thing to do would be to hope for a McCain presidency," CTV quotes Greg Anderson, a U.S. foreign policy expert at the University of Alberta. On national security, however, it's a different picture. A dove is better than a hawk, Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto specializing in Canada-U.S. relations told CTV. But in the end, pragmatism reigns. Canadian experts quoted by CTV agree: "You work with whoever's there." Pragmatic is also a word that comes to mind when reading Anneli Jäätteenmäki's analysis in the Helsinki Times, which also questions which of the two presidential candidates is better for Europe. Jäätteenmäki, a Finnish Member of the European Parliament for the Centre Party, puts it this way: "What we all must realize is that both candidates recognize that American foreign policy must change. They both want to move away from the unilateralism of the Bush administration towards a more multilateral approach. I believe that this change will be good for both the United States and Europe." In a nutshell: "Either way, Europe is better off." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It’s hard to get at what John McCain was thinking this week, precisely, when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain if elected. That’s because none of the explanations – three of which are speculative and one of which is official – entirely make sense. Explanation #1: McCain didn’t know whom the interviewer was talking about. This is the most embarrassing possible outcome, because it puts it in the gaffe territory, and it’s not very flattering to McCain’s argument that he’s the one with all the foreign policy experience. McCain answered the question with references to “Mexico,” the “hemisphere,” “Latin America” and “the region,” and when the interviewer specified that the question was about “Europe,” McCain answered, “What about me, what?” as though he was confused, then went back to speaking very generally about his policy. On the other hand, McCain has spoken about Jose Luis Zapatero before, so why would he suddenly not know who he was? Which brings us to… Explanation #2: McCain didn’t understand what the interviewer was saying, through no fault of his own. Of all the explanations, this seems to be the one that even liberal types have been offering most generously. The interviewer, they say, spoke with a very think accent. (Alternately, McCain was having a “senior moment” – not that such a moment is a good thing.) The problem with this one is that McCain’s foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has explicitly stated that McCain did understand the interviewer. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but if it’s not, it does mean that the McCain camp would be lying instead of taking the answer that would cause the least controversy. But maybe they have a reason for wanting it to be known that he understood. Which brings us to… Explanation #3: McCain intended to slight Zapatero. Relations between President Bush and Spain have been cold ever since Zapatero pulled troops out of Iraq shortly after winning election in 2004. McCain could be in the same camp. The problem with that is, back in April, McCain didn’t seem to be. He spoke in a very conciliatory manner in a spring interview: “I would like for [President Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together.” Nothing major has happened in U.S.-Spain relations since April that has been made public, so that means that any change would have had to come as a result of a mysterious internal shift within the McCain camp. So what does the McCain camp say?… Explanation #4: McCain was just keeping his options open, as a matter of policy. The official explanation, from Scheunemann: “If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open…” Few problems there. First, the interviewer didn’t ask for those specifics. Second, in the same interview, McCain implied he welcomed the idea of meeting with Mexico’s president. “I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion. And by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very tough fight against the drug cartels,” he said. Finally, it also doesn’t square with McCain’s April implication that he would like to meet with Zapatero, unless McCain just wanted to have Zapatero come to America and not meet with him, for some reason. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We have parsed and analyzed John McCain's and Barack Obama's reactions and stance vis-à-vis Russia and Georgia here at Across the Pond, while the military conflict between both states was taking place. But more often than not, after the dust settles and other topics make their way onto the agenda, journalists often neglect to follow up with a sober after-the-fact analysis of events. Even we are not blameless in this regard. But sometimes when the media fail, academia comes to the rescue. In our case, it comes in the form of the Hungarian think tank Budapest Analyses, which has just released (via GMF) its take on the presidential candidates' stances on Russia. Here are a few nuggets from the BA's brief on McCain and Obama: -John McCain reiterated his tough stance toward Russia, which is even more hard-line than President George W. Bush's. -John McCain, as president, would carry on with President Bush's 'Democracy Project' where Russia and its neighbors are concerned. -John McCain is "instinctively prone to shoot from the hip; second, he harbors deep personal enmities against Vladimir Putin; and third, his foreign policy advisers are a mix of Realpolitik practitioners and neo-conservatives." -John McCain's neo-conservative advisers are pushing him toward a more hawkish stance toward Russia. -John McCain is a staunch supporter of the planned anti-missile batteries in Poland (and the radar systems in the Czech Republic) and feels that they might be serving as a hedge against potential threats from Russia and China. -"Barack Obama remained relatively aloof during the conflict and did not go beyond calling for vigorous diplomatic actions to reach a political solution." -Barack Obama's Hawaiian vacation during the conflict doesn't explain his lackluster response on the issue. -Barack Obama's only issued "one mildly directly critical comment about Moscow's behavior in the conflict," namely that genuine peacekeeping forces should be deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. -Barack Obama's brief statement during the conflict "implied that he did not consider the conflict as so serious a step by Russia that would necessitate a strong American response." -Barack Obama and his team, in classical Realpolitik fashion, think the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on a host of issues. -Barack Obama and "his foreign policy team - among others Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Gregory Craig - are skeptical about the wisdom of deploying the anti-missile batteries in Poland; that is, "provoking" the Russians unnecessarily." -Barack Obama, however, has to convey that he is not "soft" on national security and has tried to position himself in the tradition of FDR and JFK as someone who can "blend foreign policy with moral considerations". -Barack Obama himself has talked about a new type of leadership so much that "a conventional Realpolitik would be a big disappointment for a lot of his supporters." To read the detailed analysis click here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| (As Congress considers voting on a civilian nuclear deal with India in the very near future, now is as good a time as any to evaluate where the two presidential candidates have stood on the issue, and how it could play politically. This is the second of two parts, which focuses on the latter; the first part, which focuses on the former, can be read here.) Both candidates bring up their support for the India nuclear deal when addressing Indian American -- sometimes called Asian Indian -- voters. Extensive data on the actual voting patterns of Indian Americans proved more difficult to find than I expected; they tend to get grouped in with other Asians, and considering that views on the Indian nuclear deal would surely vary between Chinese Americans, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans, Asian American figures are useless here. Estimates vary because their population is exploding, but according to the 2007 U.S. Census, there are 2.5 million Indian Americans in the U.S. Over the past couple elections, they have appeared to vote strongly Democratic; one estimate had them registered at 60 percent, while a poll from before the 2004 election had them strongly favoring John Kerry. Per this study, they don’t tend to vote as often as the general populace, although there is some evidence that they have increased those numbers of late. There does seem to be an anecdotal surge of young Indian Americans who are inclined toward Barack Obama. The reasons for the trend toward Democrats, according to a journalist who frequently reports on them: “If I had to theorize… I'd say it relates directly to a.) the geographical location of the community in more blue stats [sic] (like NJ, NY, and California) b.) how a President handles foreign policy in South Asia, c.) how religious/Christian the Republican rhetoric is at the time, and d.) the fact that most Indian Americans don't arrive wealthy - it's a slow climb to the top.” Because, as the U.S. India Political Action Committee notes, many Indian Americans are wealthy, they exert influence in campaign donations. They raised $5 million for Democrats in 2004 and $1.5 million for Republicans, according to a piece in the L.A. Times. However, Republicans have been making a play for this group of voters. One evaluation of the voting group in 2006 estimated that pro-India policies championed by George Bush had helped pull some Indian Americans into the GOP column. Many Indian Americans favor conservative family values. Some of the wealthier among them might be inclined toward tax policies that do not target the rich, and resentful of negativity from some Democratic candidates toward outsourcing that has benefited India. And Indian American Bobby Jindal won election as Republican governor of Louisiana with nearly 90 percent of the vote from the group. There is contrasting information on whether the nuclear deal is a big deal to Indian American voters. The LA Times story I linked above shows that Indian Americans mobilized to support the deal in 2006 and help push it through, despite other political barriers to doing so. An official with USINPAC said that for Indian Americans who voted in 2006, “the Indian nuclear energy deal was right up there with green cards and visas” as top issues. On the other hand, a focus group convened by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future found that, among its sample, there was greater interest in this election in issues of concern to all voters, from the economy to Iraq. While there are a decent number of Indian Americans in swing states Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, because American businesses might benefit from increased trade, there’s a broader economic argument to the India deal, too. It’s not something either candidate spends much time on the trail talking about, but if the deal comes before Congress next week, it wouldn’t be surprising to see either of them touting –- a little bit, anyway –- the economic benefits of the deal and jostling for position about who supported it most. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In her first town hall meeting with John McCain, Sarah Palin was asked to address her perceived lack of foreign policy experience by giving specifics how she is prepared to deal with global affairs. Instead of providing specifics, Palin offered generalities, as Scott Conroy points out in From the Road. Palin, as any other candidate, is free to answer or not answer any questions. And it is also Palin's prerogative to let McCain speak about her foreign policy credentials in the town hall meeting, and let her spokesman provide details relating to her foreign policy experience at a later date. That approach, however, won't work long term because it won't satisfy questions voters and the media have about her record. But, as has been reported here and elsewhere, the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin is still ongoing, and perhaps as the Alaska Governor said herself, the goal is not to be ready today, but to be ready come January 20, 2009. Considering Palin's reluctance to address foreign policy issues at this point, the Republican vice presidential candidate went out on a limb, which she may live to regret, writes Mosheh Oinounou at Fox News Embeds. At the town hall meeting in Michigan, Palin issued the following challenge: "I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead you can ask me to play stump the candidate if you want to." What will Palin's dare mean for the campaign? "While Palin's offer of stump the candidate was partially meant in jest, media already eager to trip up the Alaska Governor on her perceived weakness now have even more incentive to — if ever accorded the opportunity to ask questions," writes Oinounou, adding that the last candidate to issue such a dare was Gary Hart. He ultimately lost that challenge. But even more intriguing is the question why Palin even made such a challenge? It is a challenge that is her's to lose. One must only ask a fairly specific foreign question and pretty much every politician - whether veteran foreign policy official or novice candidate - will fail. What's more, to prove that one can memorize foreign ministers and capitals doesn't necessarily convey foreign policy experience, but rather good memory skills. In a nutshell: By issuing such a challenge, Palin or any other politician, is in a no-win situation. If she answers a question correctly, it doesnt improve her foreign policy standing. If she makes a gaffe, it confirms her critics' perception that she is clueless on foreign policy. So why did she do it? What do you think? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| After reporting numerous times about Barack Obama's popularity in Germany, Europe and the world, we here at Across the Pond thought we had Obamamania covered inside out and had pretty much considered that part of the election saga closed. We were wrong. We still managed to ignore reports coming out of Canada that it had been struck by a severe case of Obamamania. But what is being reported now out of Brazil by the Guardian (via the Drudge Report) redefines the entire concept of admiration and adoration for Barack Obama the world has seen heretofore. According to the Guardian, at least six Brazilian politicians have renamed themselves after the Democratic candidate hoping to be more attractive for voters. But it doesn't end with the name change. Change is also what one of the Brazilian Obamas, a man formerly know as Claudio Henrique dos Anjos, wants to bring Belford Rexo, a city on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro: "I say the same things. I talk about political renewal, change, about transforming the city." While people were renaming themselves after Obama in Brazil, a totally different phenomenon is sweeping the U.S., as media outlets as diverse as Marie Claire and ABC News are reporting: Palinmania. For better or worse, so far no name changes to Palin have surfaced by admirers of John McCain's running mate. And so far, as the Daily Telegraph notes, Palinmania has been slow to cross the Atlantic. We'll keep you posted should that change. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| (As Congress considers voting on a civilian nuclear deal with India in the very near future, now is as good a time as any to evaluate where the two presidential candidates have stood on the issue, and how it could play politically. This is the first of two parts.) The process on the India nuclear deal is rather complicated. Here’s CQ’s Adam Graham-Silverman’s explanation, in a Sept. 8 article that lays out all the pros and cons of the deal, the political stakes and more: “India, which has twice tested nuclear weapons, has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That means it needs exceptions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to join the global nuclear energy domain, and special action from Congress for nuclear trade with the United States. Over the weekend, the NSG, an international body overseeing trade in nuclear reactors and fuel, agreed under heavy U.S. pressure to waive its restrictions. The Indian parliament approved the nuclear agreement and the IAEA engaged safeguards earlier this year. Under the Hyde Act (PL 109-401), enacted in 2006 to give Congress oversight of a final agreement with India, congressional approval is also needed.” Both Barack Obama and John McCain voted for that 2006 act. And each of their positions is now virtually indistinguishable from the other. But in the process of considering the 2006 legislation, they diverged on two failed amendments that some supporters of the deal said were “killer” amendments that would unravel the agreement by forcing its renegotiation. Obama voted for amendments that, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, would “condition the deal on India ending military cooperation with Iran and a presidential certification that nuclear cooperation with India will not aid India in making more nuclear weapons.” The arguments for those amendments are almost self-explanatory -- that Iran has been hostile toward the United States and the U.S. has a goal of halting the creation of more nuclear weapons. Although Obama voted for the amendments, a magazine in India that interviewed him reported in July that he said he now was “reluctant to seek changes” to the agreement. McCain’s camp has hit him over this position, citing his votes for “poison pill” amendments as evidence that he did not fight hard enough for the deal. Wrote McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb: “Obama, as is so often the case… joined a small minority of liberal senators to stymie important legislation with serious implications for national security. And now he claims to be a champion of the nuclear deal.” (Part two, tomorrow, will look at Indian Americans as a voting group and some related political ramifications of the deal.) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I thought I’d missed my chance at commenting on Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson last week, but since others are still dissecting it, there’s no reason not to analyze what she said on our little slice of the blogosphere, foreign policy in the 2008 presidential race. Let’s try to do a little refereeing. --Vice presidents. Palin was just plain wrong when she answered the question about whether she’d met with foreign leaders thusly: “I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.” CBS found that you’d have to go back to Spiro Agnew to find even a vice president who likely had not met with a foreign leader prior to taking on the job of running mate. --Bush doctrine. This piece in The Australian Monday may have been overly generous in giving Palin credit for “perfect nuance” on foreign policy, but it’s right about one thing: Different people mean different things by “Bush doctrine,” so Palin probably wouldn’t have been alone in wanting to clarify. That said, her answer betrayed a lack of familiarity with any single version of the “Bush doctrine.” --Global warming. When she said that she believed mankind “can be contributing” to climate change, it was not a flip-flop. She has said in the past: “I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.” Each of those statements sounds at odds, and maybe they are meant to lead the listener down one direction or the other toward what she wants people to think she believes. Her position can be summarized thusly: “I’m not saying it’s man-made, but it might be.” It’s roughly equivalent to the view of an agnostic: “I’m not saying there’s a God, but there might be.” I think the more relevant question than whether she flip-flopped is whether there’s enough science to suggest more than mere “potential” for man-made global warming. --Russia. It is true that if NATO accepted Georgia into its ranks and Russia attacked it, the U.S. “perhaps” could find itself in war with Russia, as Palin said. It’s actually the whole idea – if one NATO ally is attacked, the concept goes, the whole of NATO is attacked and must respond as such. But you won’t find many candidates who would have answered the hypothetical that way, for fear of being provocative. And was the Russia attack on Georgia “unprovoked,” as Palin said? Russia had made it pretty clear that they were agitated by Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia but Georgia continued along the path it did. “Provoked” and “justifiable” aren’t necessarily the same thing. Some would argue that Russia was indeed provoked, whether it was right to attack Georgia or not. --Pakistan. Palin effectively endorsed Barack Obama’s position on going after terrorists in Pakistan without that country’s permission, a position John McCain has rejected, when she said, “I believe America has to exercise all options.” |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In this space of late, I've emphasized the ways in which President Bush's foreign policy has come to resemble Barack Obama's: On Iraq, on meeting with controversial foreign leaders, and most recently, on conducting operations inside Pakistan without its permission to go after al Qaeda. The Weekly Standard offers up a different case: That Obama is actually following John McCain's lead. And on most of the examples the conservative magazine offers, there is truth in them. On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Russia's invasion of Georgia and other topics, Obama over time shifted toward McCain. Both cases, stated at their lowest common denominator, are true. Bush has shifted toward Obama, in some situations. Obama has shifted toward McCain, in some situations. There's a kind of three-way game of chase going on here, where each of two candidates and the one president alternately distances himself from and moves closer to one or both of the others. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Sarah Palin visited Iraq, but stayed really close to the border for a really brief time. That sums up the most current version given by Palin's team of the Alaska Governor's trip to Iraq. As Jazz Shaw points out correctly in The Moderate Voice, "it should be noted, once again, that there technically isn’t a lie in here per say. She apparently was inside of both of those countries and I suppose you could consider every square inch of Iraq a 'battle zone' if you parse the language closely enough." Still, adds Shaw, "Palin is looking like far less of a rube or Washington Outsider than the original billing and much more adept at twisting political tales to the advantage of the campaign without allowing herself to get caught in an actual 'pants on fire' situation." That assumes that Palin and her team deliberately released misleading information, which is not necessarily the case. It could simply be a rookie mistake by a team that has not operated in this kind of media and political environment before. If that was the case, then they better adapt fast, because after this incident the media will even play closer attention to all the information provided by Palin and her staff. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It's remarkable, really. On several of the top, most divisive national security issues of the 2008 election... from Iraq to meeting with controversial foreign leaders... and now, to whether to conduct military operations in Pakistan against al Qaeda targets even if Pakistan doesn't allow it... President Bush has moved significantly toward Barack Obama in the last few months. If this New York Times story is true, Bush has taken up Obama's proposal -- much-mocked by John McCain -- to take action across the Pakistan border without the blessings of that country's leadership. It is the key position in which Obama is more hawkish than McCain. McCain has said he will follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" as president, but he has drawn the line at crossing the border into Pakistan, reasoning (as many do) that alienating Pakistan with an attack on their soil isn't worth the trouble it would cause. (Interestingly enough, at a hearing I attended the day before the Times story broke, Defense Secretary Robert Gates -- possibly alluding to the divide over this issue on the presidential trail -- made the argument that Pakistan was too important to alienate.) Indeed, the move has has proven troublesome, based on Pakistan's reaction. But that's not the point. The point is that, once again, Bush has done something that is more like the Democratic presidential candidate than the Republican one. And it hasn't much been noticed yet that in this case -- Reason picked up on it, and MSNBC briefly mentioned it, but I don't see much else on a cursory search, perhaps because it would require reporters to confirm the Times' account of a classified order and they simply haven't done it yet. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Another nice catch from the National Security Network: John McCain this week criticized Barack Obama for wanting to cut the Pentagon's "Future Combat Systems" program, when McCain himself actually proposed eliminating the very program just last month. McCain has disliked the program for quite some time, per Wired's Noah Schactman. Unless, of course, McCain was just talking about lower-case "future combat systems," as opposed to the expensive upper-case version that has critics just about everywhere, in which case the burden is on his campaign to produce evidence of that. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| "Tell me one single thing they're going to do on the economy, foreign policy, taxes, that is going to be change," Joe Biden said this weekend on NBC. I answer the challenge thusly: Part one -- there are ways in which John McCain and Sarah Palin would do things differently than George Bush has on foreign policy. There are some distinctions between McCain and Bush on nuclear non-proliferation, although they are slight and closing. McCain's rhetoric on Russia and Darfur has been more brisk, and McCain has taken a harder stance on negotiations with enemy countries than Bush has of late. Bush favors drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and McCain opposes it (at least for now). The full list is actually longer than that; those are just a few that come to mind. Part two -- the fact is that McCain would do things more like Bush than Barack Obama would. On Iraq, free trade and a number of other foreign policy-related issues, there is very little difference between Bush and McCain. On Iraq, free trade and a number of other foreign policy-related issues, there IS a good deal of difference between Bush and Obama. It's a framing question, more than anything. Biden was trying to use some shorthand. It just seemed that, since he asked, someone ought to answer. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Some things never change: Even as the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama in the U.S. is tightening, people across the world stick with their preferred candidate. According to a just released poll, people in 22 countries want Obama to become president, while McCain is not favored in a single country. The poll conducted by Globescan for the BBC included more than 23,000 participants in countries such as Australia, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Kenya, Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey and was carried out in July and August. "The margin in favor of Senator Obama ranged from 9 percent in India to 82 percent in Kenya, while an average of 49 percent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 percent preferring Senator McCain," ABC News Australia reported. According to ABC, the countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations were America's NATO allies -- Canada (69 percent), France (62 percent), Germany (61 percent), Britain (54 percent), Italy (64 percent), as well as Australia (62 percent), Kenya (87 percent) and Nigeria (71 percent). For regular readers of Across the Pond, the world's staunch and consistent support of the Democratic candidate doesn't come as a suprise. We have written about various polls with the same outcome here repeatedly. What is interesting though is that now that the campaign is really heating up and people in the U.S. and the world are learning more about both candidates - but especially about the relative newcomer Obama - how differently Americans and the rest of the world react to what they see. While Americans, according to most recent polls, haven't really made up their minds on Obama, people across the globe, like what they see and hear from Obama and really want him and not McCain in the White House. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The race seems to be all about Sarah Palin right now, even though she isn't around. She's not around in part because she's been getting a briefing on foreign policy. I missed this last week, but the Washington Post added some detail to the Newsweek account of how Palin is getting up to speed, which I discussed here. The highlights include details of her trip to AIPAC, chaperoned by Joe Lieberman -- prompting yet more tea leaf-reading about her views on Israel. Another highlight is the list released by John McCain's campaign of the foreign trade representatives she had met with from foreign countries, which strikes me as among the more credible foreign policy-related credentials she has in a record that still remains very thin. The Public Diplomacy blog takes note of some other points from the piece here. Condi Rice isn't impressed, either way. The Secretary of State declined to praise Palin's nomination in a recent interview, as she did for Barack Obama's pick of Joe Biden. I continue to be surprised by the lack of outrage from the right at Rice's friendship with Obama and some of her comments about the campaign; they've only indirectly attacked the State Department for undermining McCain on the campaign trail. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Even though his staff has been more critical of Sarah Palin, Barack Obama has been mostly hands-off about directly going after her. That changed Sunday in the area where she is least experienced: foreign policy. "I actually knew that Alaska was right next to Russia as well," Obama said with a laugh, responding to Republican claims that Palin is more experienced than he is on foreign policy. "I saw it on a map." And he threw a slightly more indirect jab by bringing up the experience of his own vice presidential nominee. "As somebody who's served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and passed legislation on issues like nuclear proliferation -- and somebody who selected Joe Biden as vice president, who is chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- I'm going to be happy to have a substantive debate with [John] McCain about foreign policy," Obama said. Both his remarks came on ABC News. There's a delicate risk/reward ratio to Democrats getting too aggressive in their attacks on Palin, which will be tested more than Obama tested it Sunday when Biden debates Palin. Every delegate I talked to at the Republican National Convention said they salivate at the idea of the two male candidates attacking Palin, reasoning that women voters will rally to support her. My CQ colleague Jonathan Allen asks here whether Republicans have set a trap. The McCain camp, for its part, continues to push the line that Palin is more experienced on foreign policy than Obama, based on her role as head of the Alaska National Guard, although that argument has been exposed as faulty in numerous outlets, since the president controls the National Guard in national security-related scenarios. Perhaps a safer argument for the McCain team is more like the one made by the Democrats: Being right on the issues matters more than experience. "We will stack Palin’s foreign policy credentials against Obama’s any day," McCain spokesman Ben Porritt said. "She understands the surge in Iraq is working." This ends up being rather circular, no matter how you cut it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Want to see how John McCain and Barack Obama stack up on major foreign policy issues? Want to participate in a poll on important topics such as NAFTA, Iran, Darfur and energy independence, and then see which of the two candidates shares your views? Want to compare campaign statements by Obama and McCain on international relations? Or find out which blogs to follow to get the scoop on foreign policy? If you do, then check out the just released election guide 2008 by the Foreign Policy Association. As you have probably guessed by now, I think it is really, really good. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Ever since Sarah Palin joined Barack Obama and John McCain in the quest for the biggest pastor problem, I have been wondering: Is there some written or unwritten rule that every candidate on a presidential ticket must now bring his or her own pastor issue with them? I can't recall that in previous presidential elections, pastor problems were a campaign staple, but I may be wrong. Are pastor problems part of the vetting process now? And if so, when is Joe Biden's turn? Please enlighten me. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. – It’s been a busy week here, to say the least. Let’s hit some links. --Here, for CQ, I run down the reason this convention has focused so much on national security when voters care more about the economy. It’s a subject I’ve written about here before, but the piece elaborates on it, and features some interviews with pollsters and campaign aides. --I had the same thought as Foreign Policy’s Passport here: Sarah Palin was looking to piggyback foreign policy with energy during her speech, which was a way of using one of her strengths to cover one of her weaknesses. Interestingly, as I’ve written before, John McCain has been using foreign policy to buttress himself on other topics. --Rudy Giuliani’s statement that Democrats were afraid to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” at their convention warranted a “barely true” rating from Politifact. There’s an interesting side debate about what labels should be used to describe this particular national security phenomenon. It erupted in Congress after the Bush administration itself issued guidelines about the best language to avoid inciting unnecessary hostilities with Muslims. Giuliani obviously sides with some conservatives who say “Islamic terrorism” is the best description of the phenomenon and should not be censored. Democrats obviously side with the administration guidelines that “terrorism” does the trick just fine without additional possible risks. --I was wondering about this, and wouldn’t you know, Michael Isikoff is on it. That is, how is Palin getting up to speed on foreign policy? She handled it without incident in her convention speech, but it won’t be too long until she’s debating Joe Biden, and things could get interesting if he challenges her on foreign policy details and she’s not prepared. --McCain is certainly a hawk, so it’s interesting to see that a top surrogate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, says McCain plans to bolster the doves who usually inhabit the State Department if he becomes president. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| After Barack Obama and John McCain, it's now Sarah Palin's turn to have a pastor problem. And the way it looks right now, for the attention and the flak she's catching for her association with her former pastor Ed Kalnins, she is definitely competing with the trouble Obama faced with his problem pastor Jeremiah Wright earlier this year. According to the Huffington Post, who reviewed sermons by the pastor, Kalnins "preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode." What's more, Palin's current pastor Larry Kroon also doesn't shy away from controversy. He "gave the pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus", reports Ben Smith. Brickner, according to Smith, "described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity." But to make things even worse, it's not just statement's by Palin's former and current pastor that are controversial, remarks by the Alaska Governor herself have also caused a media stir. As the Wall Street Journal and many other outlets report, Governor Palin at the invitation of her former pastor Kalnins "appeared on stage in June before a youth group at Wassila Assembly of God, where she reminisced fondly about getting baptized there, before asking the young people to pray for a proposed natural gas pipeline in Alaska and for American soldiers." Here's what Palin said: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." A lot of people, especially outside of the U.S., are uncomfortable with the important role that faith plays in American life and how openly and directly many Americans speak about their faith. I am not. As a European, I have always been fascinated by the sheer multitude of beliefs Americans hold and the very deep and personal faith many Americans profess. And I also don't take issue with the fact that many American politicians have strong religious beliefs that guide their lives. But what I do think is problematic is when religion is invoked to justify or support narrow political interests. And that is exactly what Sarah Palin has done. But what do you think? Is it okay for a Governor to assert that the Iraq war is a task from God and to ask people to pray for a natural-gas pipeline? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Last night's fundraiser for Barack Obama in Geneva, Switzerland featuring Hollywood star George Clooney was a big success. Despite the steep price of 1,000 dollars for the reception and 10,000 dollars for a seat at Clooney's table, all places were filled, Swiss daily Tages-Anzeiger reported. Most of the 170 guests hailed from places like Los Angeles, Prague, London and Zurich, the paper quoted organizer Charles Adams. According to 20 Minuten Online, the 900,000 dollars that Clooney brought in with the event is the highest amount raised for Obama outside the United States. Still no word on the dinner menu. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- Foreign policy quickly got into the Republican National Convention mix Tuesday. But it did it, in its most prominent instance, in a head-scratching way. Republicans hadn’t much been using the "Barack Obama voted against funding troops on the ground" argument of late, but it surfaced in Tuesday’s speech by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat turned independent, when he said: "When Barack Obama was voting to cut off off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide." President Bush made a similar point. What Lieberman says Obama did, John McCain did also, but in different bills. The Democratic group Democracy Arsenal has two fact checks that are on point. Obama would say his vote was a vote in opposition to the war; McCain would say his vote was a vote in opposition of ending the war. But the claim of not supporting the troops either applies to both of them or neither of them. Fred Thompson, who delivered the more fiery and well-received speech, largely steered clear of foreign policy, and usually spoke generally when he did, so no fact check is really necessary there – although he implied Obama believes he has to apologize for the United States of America, and to my knowledge, Obama has never expressed that desire. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Are you an American living in Europe with 10,000 dollars to spare and no dinner plans for tonight? Actually, it helps if you are a fan of George Clooney and support Barack Obama for president. If so, then you should head to Geneva, Switzerland immediately where Clooney will headline a fundraiser for the Democratic presidential candidate tonight. The event organized by Charles Adams, an American lawyer living in Switzerland, will kick off in Geneva's old town with a reception and continue at Adams' residence with a dinner, Swiss daily Blick reports. For the price tag of 10,000 dollars guests secure a seat at Clooney's table. For a mere 1,000 dollars guests may only listen to Clooney's remarks at the reception. The fundraiser in Geneva is the biggest of its kind outside the United States, Basler Zeitung quoted Adams who said that guests may also get treated with a personal video message by Barack Obama. So what's for dinner you ask? Something exclusive like foie gras, Adams told Blick, adding that he doesn't really know himself since it is delivered by a catering company. So how can you find out if that coveted seat next to George Clooney is still available? Ask Charles Adams. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A new survey focusing on America's role in the world by the United Nations Foundation UNF (via U.S. Diplomacy Blog) doesn't offer too many new insights into what Americans want their next president to focus on, but rather confirms the dramatic evolvement of issues since the start of the campaign. Iraq, once the number one issue, now is on par with health care when it comes to ranking the most important topics. Instead, the economy and energy prices now top the list. When asked specifically about the dominant foreign policy issue, unsurprisingly, America's dependence on foreign oil is the clear winner, followed by terrorism and global trade. The survey also finds that an overwhelming majority of participants feel that the U.S. is less respected around the world and that this presents a big problem. According to the UNF, there is now a new consensus among core Republican voters, core Democratic voters, and swing voters that America's dependence on foreign oil is the key international issue. Other important issues shared by all three constituents are terrorism and global trade. However, when asked whether the U.S. should be more or less active in the world, there are different trendlines. While Democrats and Independents clearly want the U.S. to be less active globally compared to an earlier poll, Republican sentiment on the question remains unchanged. So how atttuned are Barack Obama and John McCain to voter concerns about the economy and energy prices/dependence? Not much if one takes their recent choices for vice presidential candidates as an indicator. Neither Joe Biden (in contrast to Mark Warner), nor Sarah Palin (in contrast to Mitt Romney) are particularly strong on economic and trade issues. Couple that with the fact that neither Obama nor McCain are well-versed in that area either, voters won't find much economic experience on both tickets. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. – It looks like this is turning into some kind a talking point: On Sunday, in remarks to ABC, Cindy McCain said Sarah Palin had foreign policy experience because the state she governs, Alaska, is near Russia; then, to a fellow CQ reporter, former Bush administration official John Bolton offered the same defense of her, adding proximity to Canada as a qualification. It really is a bemusing strategy. Of all the arguments one could make for John McCain picking Palin, it offers the least. Via Political Animal: "Has Palin ever been to Russia? No. Has she ever demonstrated any expertise on U.S. policy towards Russia? No. Does she have any background in international relations at any level? No. But for Republicans, the fact that she's lived near Russia is somehow a qualification for national office. The mind reels." The strategy is not original, though. Democrats, it must be noted, have offered Barack Obama’s youthful stay in Indonesia as evidence of his own foreign policy experience, which is slightly – slightly – more credible than the Palin argument because at least in his case he actually had been the foreign country in question. A common defense of then-Gov. Bush in 2000, when faced with criticism of his own lack of foreign policy experience, was that he had lived near Mexico, but that was a slightly – slightly – stronger argument because at least there was interaction in that case. For now, it doesn’t look like the Palin camp is fully embracing the talking point, so one can guess they haven't issued it. A Palin spokeswoman offered this to the Wall Street Journal: "Alaska’s geographic location certainly contributes to Governor Palin’s experience since she has dealt with trade and economic issues as a result, but it is only one part of her overall experience." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.09.2008 |
|
||||||||
| SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- On one hand, it looks like John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate very well could push him to change his mind and favor drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. "I continue to examine it," he said, and asked whether he ought to have a chat with Palin about the subject, he answered, "I probably should" and "I will." On the other hand, the Republican platform-writing committee just had a bit of a scuffle over whether to include drilling in ANWR in its platform. And it was left out, officials said, specifically so that McCain wouldn't be undercut. Maybe they were just leaving him some flexibility? CQ examines points in between. |
||||||||
|
||||||||