| 29.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| While Barack Obama continues to be Europe's favorite presidential candidate, his stated support for the death penalty gave Europeans an important reality check. Obama disagreed with a recent supreme court decision to prohibit the death penalty for child rape. Apparently suprised by the presumed Democratic nominee's hard-line stance toward the death penalty, German politicians unanimously condemned his remarks. The fact that so many high level German politicians were surprised by his position, speaks to the continued Obama fascination in Europe, but also to a certain lack of insight or naivete about American politics. To win the election, Obama needs to woo independents and moderate conservatives. By demanding the abolition of the death penalty, as suggested by German politicians, he would make liberals happy, but alienate independents and conservatives. The Obama campaign figures since liberals have nowhere else to go in this election anyway, their candidate can only win with his pro-death penalty stance. They are probably right. You can read a good exploration of Obama's political strategy here. Interestingly enough, another high profile issue for Europeans on which Obama has chosen to take a more hard-line approach didn't get much attention across the pond: gun control. Obama, in response to a supreme court decision, stated that he supports an individual's right to possess guns. Surprisingly his remark didn't trigger the same political outrage in Germany as his statement about the death penalty. Maybe because of Euro 2008. What is politically interesting is that Obama has arguably switched to the right on two key issues for conservatives in the last week: gun control and the death penalty. Which brings up the old issue of flip-flopping again. Does this make him a flip-flopper or a savy politician? That probably depends on whether Obama can argue his switch convincingly. What do you think? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama praised Germany for the development of its solar power industry and urged the U.S. to follow suit. In a speech outlining his energy policy in Las Vegas he said: "Germany, a country as cloudy as the Pacific Northwest, is now a world leader in the solar power industry and the quarter million new jobs it has created. In less than eight years, before we'd ever see a drop of oil from offshore drilling, they have doubled their renewable energy output. And they did it by using technology that, in some cases, was paid for by the American people through our own Research and Development tax credits. The difference is, their government harnessed that technology by providing the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart a renewable energy industry. Washington hasn't done that." Obama is correct in stating that Germany over a relatively short time has become the world leader in solar, but also in the wind power industry. (You can find a good analysis of Germany's renewable energy policy here.) He is also correct in his assessment that Germany's renewable energy production has skyrocketed and created jobs - by how much depends on which time frame one takes into consideration. Obama's statement that German companies used technology that was developed using U.S. tax credits is probably also correct, but not all that remarkable in a global business environment. (The MP3 player, for instance, was invented by a German scientist working for a German research instution funded to a large extent by German taxpayers, but cleverly marketed by a company called Apple.) And is also true that the German government provided the necessary investments and incentives to jumpstart the renewable energy sector. What Obama left out, however, was the tool by which the German government collected the money to allocate these investments: the ecological tax or ecotax. The basic premise of the ecotax, which was implemented starting in 1999, is that energy use is taxed. Therefore consumers as well as businesses have an incentive to save energy and use energy efficient products. As part of the ecotax the gas price in Germany increased 3.07 Euro cents (ca. 5 U.S. cents) per year per liter (0.26 gallons) from 1999 to 2003. Obviously, many Germans were not very happy about paying not only more at the pump but also for energy consumption in general. And even today, the ecotax is a divisive topic in Germany, that had to be taken up by country's highest courts. So yes, Germany in a pretty short time established a viable renewable energy sector. But it comes at a price. And someone who brands himself as a new kind of politician like Barack Obama should tell people not just the goal, but also name the price. In his speech on energy policy he didn't. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The European Union deserves a big round of applause by Barack Obama and John McCain. After the Bush administration thanked the EU for adopting new sanctions on Iran, both presidential candidates should do so as well. Why? Because over the years the Europeans have been criticized by the U.S. - rightfully in my opinion - for trying to have it both ways on Iran. Europeans have always detested President George W. Bush's saber rattling, but have also not been willing to impose tough economic sanctions as an alternative out of fear it could hurt Europe's trade with Iran. That has changed. The EU, and Germany in particular, as a traditional trading partner of Iran, have stepped up to the plate recently and done their homework. The latest round of sanctions against Iran's Melli Bank combined with travel restrictions for officials underscores the EU's seriousness on the issue. While McCain and the EU have a different take than Obama on the usefulness of direct talks without preconditions with Iran, both candidates should be appreciative that the EU is participating in the effort to halt Iran's nuclear plans. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 24.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We all know there are many things one just doesn't say, even if they are true. That applies to conduct in private life. And it applies to conduct in public life and the political realm. John McCain's senior advisor Charlie Black violated that basic rule of conduct by telling Fortune magazine that another terrorist attack against the U.S. would be a "big advantage" for the Republican presidential contender. Black's remark was in bad taste and shouldn't have been made. We all know as well that sometimes people do say things that they shouldn't have, even if they are true. That, too, applies to private and public life and the political realm. So what does one do, if one said something that shouldn't have been said? Apologize. And that is exactly what Charlie Black did: "I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration," he said. So Black made a mistake and apologized. Since no one really was hurt, except perhaps John McCain and Charlie Black himself who has been critized for his past lobbying work, it's time to move on. Just for the record: The Obama and McCain campaigns reacted as expected to Black's remark. And Mark Finkelstein at the conservative media outfit Newsbusters pointed out that former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had made a similiar remark previously. Which is good to know, but doesn't make Black's remark any better. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of the challenges John McCain faces in this campaign is being perceived as a flip-flopper by the electorate. I wrote about this a few days ago. Now McCain is being accused by the Obama campaign of trying to have it both ways on immigration. It all started with a private meeting McCain held with Hispanic leaders in Chicago on Wednesday. Since the meeting was private, no official transcript of McCain's remarks exists. Between Wednesday and the weekend two different accounts of what the presumptive Republican candidate said to the group of Hispanics have emerged. Rosanna Pulido, who attended the meeting and heads the anti-illegal-immigration group Minuteman Project in Illinois, says that McCain talked about immigration reform before the assembled Hispanic leaders. "He was telling one group of people one thing and the Hispanics another," Pulido told Political Punch's Jake Tapper. "I'm a conservative and I think he's throwing conservatives under the bus." According to Pulido, McCain's "mantra" at the meeting was comprehensive immigration reform. This would run counter to his promise to focus on border security first before tackling immigration reform. McCain made that promise after his immigration reform proposal failed in Congress. You can find a good analysis of McCain's stance on immigration here. As mentioned above, Pulido's version is one side of the coin. The other is presented by Rafael Rivadeneira, a vice chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Illinois. "This was not a secret meeting," he told the AP. Rivadeneira added: "There was nothing he said that they wouldn't want people to hear." While the McCain campaign has been silent on the controversy until now, the Obama team hasn't. Obama's communications director lashed out against McCain, saying he was having a "tortured debate" with himself on the issue. Whether McCain really is trying to have it both ways on immigration or not doesn't really matter politically. What matters is that if McCain continues to open himself up to charges of flip-flopping like he has been some of them will surely stick over time. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 21.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| The second largest country in the world doesn't usually get much press coverage by its smaller southern neighbor - or by many other international media outlets for that matter. But when a U.S. presidential candidate visits Canada during his election campaign, all eyes are briefly on the only constitutional monarchy on American soil. But to be frank, even then the focus was not really on Canada, the focus was on what John McCain and Barack Obama made out of the McCain's trip to Ottawa. A trip with a special history. Earlier this year a memo by the Canadian government had been leaked that said Barack Obama's opposition to NAFTA was just political posturing and not meant seriously. So the Republican candidate had travelled to Canada to emphasize his support for free trade and NAFTA and to distance himself from his Democratic rival. In his speech to the Economic Club of Canada, McCain didn't say anything surprising. He pointed out that "cross-border trade has more than doubled since NAFTA came into force." He suggested harmonizing U.S. and Canadian energy policies. And he took a swipe at Barack Obama, by saying that "even now, for all the successes of NAFTA, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate" and by promising his audience that "if I am elected president, have no doubt that America will honor its international commitments." So how did Obama respond to McCain's trip and his remarks? Poorly. "It's interesting to me that he chose to talk about trade in Canada instead of in Ohio or Michigan", the Democratic candidate said on Friday, adding that thousands of jobs had been lost in those states during President George W. Bush's tenure. That is simply not logical. Does talking about trade in Canada exclude doing the same elsewhere? Who said McCain will not talk to voters in Ohio and Michigan about trade? In fact, McCain will have to address trade and NAFTA in detail in those must-win states. It looks like, Obama's reaction to McCain's trip to Canada will be water under the bridge for those skeptical about the Illinois Senator's perceived isolationist economic tendencies. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| John McCain has a problem. He has to play to the Republican base whose support he desperately needs to be viable in November. But at the same time he has to court moderates and independents since conservative votes alone won't win him the election. Sounds like a tightrope walk? You bet. And if McCain doesn't tread real carefully he might end up like John Kerry, as the FT explains in a brilliant take on the Republican candidate's strategy. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| We all pretty much know what the major countries in Europe and the rest of the world think about Barack Obama and John McCain. We wrote about it here many a time and it was also reported by various other outlets. But how do smaller countries in Europe feel about the election? Are there aspects that are important to them that are neglected because we tend to look only at the big players? On that note, there is a good piece on Obama and McCain's foreign policy stance from a Hungarian perspective in Budapest Analyses, which is worth checking out anyway if you are interested in other international topics. The bottom line of the article is that both McCain and Obama want to bring back a multilateral approach to U.S. foreign policy. For NATO members this will mean a new push by the U.S. to contribute to global missions. Both parties, according to Budapest Analyses, are unhappy with the work of existing international organisations, which underscores the fact that continuity in American foreign policy is more of a pattern than discontinuity. Because America's interest remains the same it would be delusional to believe that Obama would bring radical change, writes Budapest Analyses and quotes Josef Joffe. Therefore the only real foreign policy differences between Obama and McCain are the Democratic candidate's anti-free trade stance and his Republican opponent's tough position on Russia especially on security matters. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Guess what the Swiss business community and China's Communist Party have in common? That's right, both are skeptical about Barack Obama's "change" platform. I wrote about the Swiss' reasons here. China's Communist leaders for the first time in this campaign gave some clues on their view of the candidates. Of course they didn't come out themselves and speak their mind. Instead they let the government's main newspaper do it for them. In the English language overseas edition of the People's Daily, senior desk editor Ding Gang analyses the "Obama phenomenon in (the) U.S.". But while both Reuters and AFP interpret Gang's article as a clear rebuke of Obama, I am not so sure that it really is meant as one. What I gather from the article, which is at times difficult to understand, is that Obama will not be able to deliver all the things he has promised during the campaign and that his presidency would not end America's racial problems. Let's review the article then. According to Gang, the Democratic Senator's skin color and his change rhetoric are the dominant aspects of his candidacy. They are also the reason why Western media outlets are fascinated by Obama. So let's look at the skin color argument, as presented by the People's Daily. He is "the representative of the racial merging rather than a symbol for assimilation. So his rise has not done away with privileges for the white Americans but reinforces their privileges on the contrary", writes Gang in a sentence that I don't understand. Never mind what Gang means by the privileges he is writing about. But how does Obama's multi-ethnic background reinforce those privileges? Also, according to Gang, Obama, has a "different skin color (than whites do), but shares the same American background". Then a few lines later, Gang asserts that Obama because of his skin color "needs all the more to display his American values than any white presidential candidates." That doesn't make sense. First, to even emphasize that someone whose skin color is not white can also share an American background is very revealing about the author's thinking. And second, if Obama shares the same American background then why does he need to display his American values more than any white presidential candidate? Are American values not automatically part of an American background? Now let's look at the second major factor, as seen by People's Daily: change. "In the case of (the) Iraq war, Obama is quite determined and resolute with his attitude against the war", writes Gang. He adds that it is very hard to believe that Obama's approach to simply bring the troops home as soon as possible is feasible because the issue is too complex for such a move. "And similar or identical issues also exist in such fields as economy, social security and education." Most experts agree that a rapid withdrawal of American troops regardless of the situation would be counterproductive. It seems pretty obvious that Obama is aware of this and would not pull out all troops immediately. As to the other fields mentioned by the People's Daily - economy, social security, education - Obama hasn't really made revolutionary promises. To sum it all up: Will a President Obama deliver everything he said and turn the country upside down? Probably not. But most people with experience in democratic election campaigns inside and outside the U.S. are aware of this. Perhaps for some people the mere fact that a person with a multi-ethnic background can become president of the U.S. is already change enough. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If the world could vote Barack Obama would be the next U.S. president. There are however still some international holdouts. Switzerland, or the Swiss business community to be exact, is one of them. "McCain is for free trade and a free market economy and against protectionism and government interventions," Martin Naville, CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, told the Swiss business publication Cash. While Swiss companies had nothing to fear from a President John McCain, a leftist President Obama might hurt the Swiss economy in several ways, writes Cash. Swiss pharmaceutical companies like Novartis and Roche would face lower margins in their most important market due to Obama's plan to lower drug prices through imports from other countries. Swiss banks and their booming wealth management sector would suffer from Obama's goal to restrict the exodus of capital to low tax countries like Switzerland. And finally, according to Cash, Obama is skeptical about globalization and has vowed to curb outsourcing, which would also affect Swiss suppliers. But will Obama as president really be as radical as he was during his campaign, asks Cash. "He has talked so much about 'change' that he can't really wiggle his way out of it," answers the CEO of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce, Martin Naville. "After the Bush era it might very well be that the pendulum now swings back to the opposite side." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It happened already two days ago, but you know that we can't let a good story just zip by us. On Thursday night, more than three months after John McCain effectively sealed the Republican nomination, Ron Paul ended his presidential bid. And while Paul never stood the slightest chance of becoming the nominee, let alone president, the news of his decision reverberated around the globe. From MTV in the U.S. to Le Figaro in France, from Scotland's Herald to Germany's Focus Online to China's Xinhua – never have so many outlets reported news about a candidate without a chance. Of course, for regular Across the Pond readers Ron Paul's international newsworthiness doesn't come as a surprise. I wrote - and wondered - about the maverick Republican's global appeal earlier. And quite frankly, I am still perplexed by it today. But I am also happy that Ron Paul stuck to his spiel and left with a bang that won't rock the world, but serves as a nice closer for his campaign: The Republican candidate announced that he would support not his party's candidate John McCain, but instead campaign for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. However, this may not be the last word regarding Ron Paul's support for a presidential candidate. That's because another maverick contender out there has also reached out for Paul fans: Ralph Nader. The former Green party and now independent candidate is always good for a surprise or two himself. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| On certain issues there is a clear difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. The legal status of foreign terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, also called unlawful combatants, is one of them. The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied foreign terrorism suspects access to courts, unconstitutional. That same day the presumed Republican nominee, McCain, was still carefully mincing his words. He stated, that he had not read the ruling yet, but the decision concerned him. He added, however, that it was time to move on. That sounded like the end of the story. Not quite. On Friday, McCain had apparently decided it wasn't time to move on too quickly after all. "I think it's one of the worst decisions in history," he blasted. "It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution." Tim wrote about the ramifications of McCain and Obama’s position for various voter groups yesterday and pointed out that McCain has been carefully trying to distance himself from President Bush while at the same time agreeing with certain positions held by Bush. Obama on the other hand, has been trying to portray McCain's Guantanamo stance as a mere extension of Bush’s Guantanamo policy. With his statement today McCain made not only clear where he stands on the issue, but also made it so much easier for Obama to link his Republican opponent to President Bush. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Haven't heard from Col Muammar Gaddafi in a while? Yep, it's true, since the Libyan leader morphed from strongman of a rogue state to partner of the West, he has managed to tone down his rhetoric. But now Gaddafi is back. In a speech in Tripoli he not only attacked, but insulted Barack Obama. Referring to Obama's speech earlier this month at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the Democratic presidential candidate stated his support for Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, Gaddafi said Obama was either ignorant of Middle East politics or lying to further his campaign. Gaddafi elaborated in his speech marking the 38th anniversary of the departure of U.S. troops from Libya: "We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites." And just for good measure, Libya's military leader threw a bit of conspiracy theory in the mix. "We suspect he may fear being killed by Israeli agents and meet the same fate as (assassinated former U.S. President John Fitzgerald) Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel's nuclear program," Gaddafi speculated about the reasons for Obama's pro-Israel stance. What does this tell us? First, that an old hand like Gaddafi, once called a "mad dog" by President Ronald Reagan, doesn't learn new tricks. And second, it might make Barack Obama rethink the usefulness of his approach to talk to leaders of rogue states unconditionally. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Very interesting analysis by Stuart Rothenberg regarding the Obama/McCain electoral map. According to Rothenberg there exists a "serious possibility" of a repeat of the situation in 2000. One candidate could win the popular vote and the other the Electoral College. To find out where Barack Obama and John McCain end up in this scenario click here. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Just in time for the campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama to start in earnest, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate has kicked off a new blog. Called The McCain Report, the first entry was posted yesterday by Michael Goldfarb, formerly of The Weekly Standard. The new blog is apparently an addition to McCain's already existing blog. The official goal of the McCain Report is to give journalists and bloggers more insight into the campaign and "to provide quotes and information you won't be able to get anywhere else." Another, unstated goal of the blog, appears to be to poke fun at Obama and to mellow McCain's image as an old Cold Warrior with a history of getting angry. The subtitle of the McCain Report, "A blog you can believe in", is obviously a spoof on the Obama theme "Change you can believe in" - albeit one that's not exactly knee-slapping funny. The other goal, mellowing McCain's image, is tackled by displaying a picture of McCain from 2004 that shows the Arizona senator clad in t-shirt and baseball hat holding an alligator. And, by revealing that McCain is an ABBA fan, Hillary-leaning readers are invited to "Take a chance on McCain". Also not exactly hilarious (pun intended), but you shouldn't judge a blog by its first posts, so let's wait and see. Interestingly, and contrary to popular belief, McCain has been very active in reaching out to the internet community. Obama, of course, has been regarded as a master of utilizing the internet to pull in money and connect with voters. But John McCain, at least as outreach is concerned, doesn't lag far behind, and may even be on par with Obama. For details about McCain's internet strategy, check out this piece from The Nation. Obama, of course has had a blog - the Obama blog - on his site for quite some time. Unlike McCain's new blog, it is a pretty straightforward campaign tool with lots of excerpts from Obama's speeches and quotes by campaign managers. No effort to be humorous or reshape Obama's image. What's good about the Obama blog is its interactivity through readers comments and its savy use of the internet with videos, pictures and social networking sites. Overall, the Obama blog has a sleaker, hipper feel to it than the McCain Report. However, should the McCain Report over time become a tongue-in-cheek campaign chronicle that doesn't take both Obama and McCain too serious, it could fill a niche. And win McCain some sympathy points as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A couple of days ago, I wrote about a new Gallup poll that said a majority of Americans think Barack Obama's idea to talk to hostile leaders, such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, makes sense. According to the poll, even half of the Republicans questioned felt that way. These figures were a slap in the face for John McCain who has attacked Obama constantly on this issue. That's what I wrote then, because that's how it looked then. Now, three days and two polls later, the picture of how Americans feel about talking to Iran looks different. A new survey by Public Agenda finds that 47 percent of Americans think using diplomacy is the best way to deal with the current situation in Iran, while only seven percent feel military action is the best way to handle Iran. This seems to confirm the findings of the Gallup poll, but only at first glance. The Public Agenda study, which didn't receive much press coverage (Democracy Arsenal, Think Progress, and the Iranian outlet Press TV, being one of a few who reported it), is part of a larger, multi-year study called the Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. The survey was conducted from mid-March to the beginning of April and therefore long before the Iran debate between McCain and Obama started to really heat up. What's more, due to the nature of the Public Agenda study, the questions are more general: Probably most people would agree that diplomacy is the best idea to try to deal with the current situation in Iran. But as we have learned, what one means by diplomacy is very much up for interpretation. In a nutshell: The Public Agenda poll is not a valid indicator as to whether Americans support Obama's Iran policy or not. The latest Rasmussen poll is. According to the survey, conducted on June 3, most likely voters (45 percent) agree with Obama and think it is a good idea for the U.S. president to meet with his Iranian counterpart. However, when asked whether Iran should be required to stop developing nuclear weapons capabilities, 59 percent answer with yes. When asked who would do a better job negotiating with the Iranian president, McCain and Obama fare the same, each receiving 42 percent of the vote. The Rasmussen Poll was also not widely reported, CQ's Polltracker being one the few to do so. (Iran's Press TV didn't mention the Rasmussen poll.) So what do the results of both polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, mean for Obama and McCain's position on Iran? Americans want a middle of the road approach. Most people favor negotiating with hostile leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but not under any circumstances. Their message for McCain and Obama is: Let's try something new and talk to Iran's president, but only if Iran shows some goodwill as well. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Worldwide reactions to Barack Obama securing the Democratic nominiation for president against his tenacious rival Hillary Clinton were overwhelmingly positive, sometimes bordering on hysteria. We wrote about international perceptions of Obama many times in this blog. But it is fair to say that all the enthusiasm about Obama's win in the U.S or Europe pales in comparison to how Africans feel about this historic event. Kenya, Obama's father's native country, obviously leads the continent in elation about the Senator from Illinois' nomination. Mukau Mutua in The Daily Nation calls it an understatement that Kenyans are ecstatic about the possibility that Obama "a Kenyan-American of Luo extraction" might become president. "Judging by word on the street, one would be forgiven for thinking that Mr Obama was poised to become either the president of Kenya, or of Africa. There are many reasons for the hysteria, but the immediate one is national, racial, and ethnic pride that a black man can become 'king' of the empire." Ugandans, too, are excited about Obama's victory, and optimistic that he can defeat Republican John McCain in the general election in November, writes Uganda's New Vision. According to the paper, Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa described Obama's win as historic because a black man was for first time contesting for the U.S. presidency on the ticket of a main party. Ray Hartley comments in his blog The Wild Frontier for the South African Times that Obama's ascendency "has raised the hope that the US will finally assume its role as a responsible super power that will extract itself from the conflict in Iraq." For Hartley, Obama's win "signals the long overdue deracialization of American politics. Should he become president, it will go a long way towards removing racial loyalty from politics." How important the Obama nomination is to Africans becomes clear when Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade calls it "a revolution". "I think the fact that whites can choose a black candidate to represent them in presidential election is a good thing," Wade was quoted as telling reporters, adding that "this is akin to a revolution of attitudes in the United States." But what underscores the relevance of Africa's feelings about Obama even more is the fact that the Chinese news agency Xinhua published this story refering to a report by the Senegalese News Agency. While Africans are generally enthusiastic about Obama and his prospects, there is also scepticism whether Obama can fulfill high African hopes. Makau Mutua writes in Kenya's The Nation that "the United States has had a structurally racist and exploitative relationship with Africa." Mutua continues: "It is partly because of these traumas that Africa is so underdeveloped and marginalised in global politics. That is why to America, Africa has either been an afterthought or an object of pity and charity. It would require an ideological shift by the U.S. to change its relationship with Africa to base it on equality, fair trade and investment, and a voice for Africans in global institutions." According to Mukau, this cannot be done by the president alone because it requires a realignment of U.S. foreign policy away from what he calls Eurocentrism. I think Mukau makes an interesting point about Africa-U.S. relations. Where I and probably many Europeans and Americans disagree is that American foreign policy still is Eurocentric. In recent years, the U.S. has refocused its foreign policy away from Europe (military, diplomatic, economic). This has been much maligned here. However, the benefactor of this realignment was not Africa, but Asia. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| International reactions to Barack Obama's victory and Hillary Clinton's defeat are pretty much as expected. Most commentators are not surprised and glad the Democrats finally have their candidate. You can find an overview of global reactions here and here. Let's look at two more interesting takes on the end of the Democratic campaign: In an editorial titled "The Weaknesses of Barack Obama," Austria's Die Presse argues that John McCain stands a good chance of becoming President because for many Americans Obama is "too liberal, too black and too aloof." Obama's pros are his drive, his refreshingly positive style – and McCain's age, adds the paper. But Obama's long campaign against Clinton has revealed weaknesses. "The black darling of the educated elite has considerable difficulties with white workers and in large states, which were all won by Clinton. Should McCain manage to hold on to Florida and Ohio, and win Pennsylvania, than the Democrats have a real problem on the 4th of November." Torsten Krauel, Washington correspondent for the German daily Die Welt, lists eight reasons why Clinton lost against Obama: 1. Clinton focused on the large states and neglected the small ones. 2. Clinton neglected important new donors in Silicon Valley and instead relied on her old Hollywood connections. 3. Clinton's election campaign was still from the 20th century while Obama's was from the 21st and harnessed the power of the internet. 4. Bill Clinton's vicious comments that often had a racial undertone. 5. Lack of Brutality: When the Jeremiah Wright tapes surfaced Clinton could have played them constantly in her campaign and seriously damaged Obama's chances. She chose not to for fear of dividing the party. 6. She hesitated to distance herself clearly and convincingly from her vote for the war in Iraq. 7. Proportional representation hurt Clinton. In this campaign there was only one chance to build a lead among delegates: Super Tuesday. Had it not been for proportional representation, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee on February 6th. 8. Race beats gender: Clinton thought women's rights were the core question for liberals. She was wrong. The race issue was. What is your explanation of Clinton's defeat and Obama's win? What are Obama's weaknesses in the race against John McCain? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| It looks like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will make the world outside the U.S. happy tonight. Obama by becoming the official Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November, Clinton by finally deciding to end her campaign and by her willingness to be Obama's vice president. Lots has been written about the world's infatuation with Obama, here and elsewhere. With Obama's candidacy assured, however, how he is perceived by an international audience and what is expected of him becomes more important. No more fantasy football. Now it's the big leagues. A lucid analysis of Obama's international role and its possible problems offers Constanze Stelzenmüller of the German Marshall Fund of the United States: Entitled The Dalai Obama, Stelzenmüller writes that Germans' high hopes for an Obama victory are not unfounded, but they may still be dissappointed. First, because John McCain is a veritable opponent. Second, because no one knows whether racial prejudices will play a role on November 4 or not. And third: Should there be a deterioriting financial situation or a downturn of events in Iraq, Americans are more likely to vote for someone who stands for security than for someone promising change. Even if Obama defeats McCain and becomes President, the end of the euphoria is foreseeable writes Stelzenmüller. "Obama will call on the help of Germany and the rest of Europe to combat authoritarian regimes worldwide. Iran, NATO in Afghanistan, engagement on Europe's borders, diplomacy in the Middle East, and perhaps stabilization assistance in Iraq. As an idealist, Obama hopes his appeal to Europe's sense of responsibility, but if that fails, he must continue as a realist - without Europe." That sounds about right. What many people in Gemany and Europe who hope for a Democrat in the White House don't realize is that a President Obama can and will ask for so much more of Europe than President Bush ever could or John McCain will or can. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.06.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Food for thought for John McCain. According to a new Gallup poll, 67 percent of Americans think it's a good idea that the U.S. President meets with leaders of countries the United States considers enemies. This sentiment is so strong it even holds when asked specifically about Iran, the nation that is perceived to be the country's biggest enemy. When asked whether it would be a good idea for the U.S. President to meet with his Iranian counterpart 59 percent answer with yes. Interestingly, not only most Democrats and Independents agree with the idea, but also almost 50 percent of Republicans. What did McCain do the same day the poll was released? He blasted Barack Obama again for his earlier suggestion (which Obama had altered recently) that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At a speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), McCain portrayed Obama as a candidate inexperienced in foreign policy and out of touch with the situtation in the Middle East: "We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before," the presumed Republican nominee said without mentioning his Democratic rival by name. McCain's problem is that most Americans apparently don't care whether the idea is old, bold or new. They simply think it's a good one. They say let's give it a shot and talk to the president of Iran and other hostile leaders. And by supporting that idea, they also clearly support Obama, who brought it up in the first place. The poll is great news for Obama in an area where he really needs it – foreign policy. It shows that large numbers of Americans are willing to consider a different foreign policy approach in dealing with rogue states. It also shows that at least on this important issue McCain's finger pointing at Obama is simply not good enough. If McCain wants to keep the status quo, he has to convince people of his reasons. He hasn't been able to do that yet. Just calling Obama and his ideas naive won't do the trick. |
||||||||
|
||||||||