| 31.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Yesterday I wrote that many commentators in the U.S. already focus on what a Barack Obama administration would look like. Well, it's not just American editorialists that read the polls, commentators across the globe do too. So here's a sample of the how the world media projects an Obama presidency and what it means for their particular regions. "Unlike Palin, McCain, or that Action Man doll of contemporary Republican politics, Joe the Plumber, no one in Europe is ever likely to call president Obama a European Socialist," reads the last sentence of Clive Leviev-Sawyer's blog post titled "Could Obama really be a president for Europe" in Bulgaria's Sofia Echo. Another Eastern European take on an Obama presidency stems from Ukraine's Kyiv Post: "There are many ways that Ukraine and the U.S. can improve relations. Unfortunately, we believe both nations are heading into a period in which other priorities will trump bilateral relations. But we also believe that progress can best be made, and needless conflict avoided, by Obama as president." You can read the entire editorial here. "What's next if Obama wins," asks Canada's largest urban weekly, Vancouver's Straight.com, The final paragraph of the longish article trying to answer the question reads like this: "Hopefully, as he tells us, Obama will bring "the change we need" and usher in a new day for the economy, social issues, and international relations. Before that day comes, however, we should probably follow Bette Davis’s famous advice in All About Eve: "Fasten your seat belts; it’s going to be a bumpy night." For the extended version click here. Out of Africa comes a sobering prediction what a President Obama will mean for the continent. "Not terribly much. The combination of American interests lying geographically elsewhere for the most part, and a predatory political class that sees control of the state in Africa primarily as a mechanism for personal accumulation, will determine that. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man will not change that stark reality," writes Bill Hansen, who teaches at the American University of Nigeria. You can read his editorial here and find his blog here. The African perspective offered by myjoyonline.com, a leading information portal out of Ghana, is not as bleak as Bill Hansen's: "Evidence from the presidential campaign in the United States has shown that Americans are not looking forward to a black president in the White Hose, only an American president. Similarly, Africans are not expecting an African president of United States to deliver them from the negative aspects of their predicament; they expect an American president who will relate to the people of the continent with dignity, respect, and on merit." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 30.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With all the major polls for some time now signaling a lead by Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain, many commentators focus on what an Obama presidency would mean for the U.S. and the world. William Drozdiak is one of them. In a guest editorial for Deutsche Welle, the President of the American Council on Germany sketches the most pressing issues facing an Obama administration, and how the Democrat can go down in the history books as a truly transformational leader. After you read William Drozdiak's piece here, drop us a comment and let us know whether you agree or disagree. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Russia's relations with the West, particularly the U.S., are strained for a whole host of reasons. Russia's military action in Georgia, the Bush administration's plans for missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Russia's use of its huge energy resources as a political power tool are just a few of the issues of disagreement between Washington and Moscow. So one would think that for all these reasons Russians have a keen interest in the American presidential elections and hope that President George W. Bush's successor may want to give Russian-American relations another go. So what do Russians think about the election, and do they favor Barack Obama or John McCain? Surprisingly, at least from my research, there is not all that much information about that topic available. So it's helpful that Deutsche Welle's Moscow correspondent Alexandra van Nahmen wrote about it in her weekly column. "I hope Obama wins," is a sentence one here's a lot in Russia when the topic is the U.S. election, writes van Nahmen. According to her article, Russians, like the rest of the world, also want Obama to be the next president. A recent poll found that 22 percent of Russians would vote for Obama; only six percent would vote for McCain. But the most stunning number is this: The remaining huge majority of those polled said they could not answer the question. Assuming the poll is correct, why do the majority of Russians not have a clear opinion whether they want Obama or McCain in the White House. Unfortunately, since I'm not Russia expert, I can't answer that question. But perhaps some of the knowledgeable Russia bloggers like Robert Amsterdam or Sean's Russia Blog want to take a stab at it. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Based on the assumption that Barack Obama will win the presidential election, John Vinocur wrote an interesting piece in the International Tribune predicting that "Obama's fans in Europe are in for a big surprise." I had written about the same topic in June. In a nutshell, Vinocur argues that Obama will disappoint his European followers by clearly putting American national interests first. A President Obama would not simply be one multilateral player among other world leaders that Europeans hope for, but instead decide what's in America's interest. Vincocur lists the economic crisis, but also foreign policy issues, such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Russia as examples where Obama would take a different tack than expected by Europeans. What Obama would handle differently than his predecessor is style, writes Vinocur: "He would be following Bill Clinton, once described by Denis MacShane, then minister for Europe in Tony Blair's cabinet, as "a Social Democrat who put Europe on Valium, who could schmooze Europe, talk European." So what is your take on that? Is a President Obama bound to disappoint Europeans, or will the honeymoon last? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Electronic voting machines used for the U.S. presidential election on November 4 are easy to manipulate and pose major security risks, warns Europe's largest hacker group. "The electronic voting machines by all manufacturers still have major security gaps," Constanze Kurz, spokeswoman for German-based Chaos Computer Club (CCC), told AFP. According to Kurz, paperless voting machines, i.e., systems that don't record the results on paper as well, are especially problematic since neither voters, nor the election commissions have a reliable way of controlling the outcome. It is to be feared that the election result announced in the U.S. "hardly reflects the true intention of voters," Kurz said. The security gaps affect both the hard- and software of voting machines, Kurz, who is writing her Ph.D. thesis on voting machines, told AFP. Memory cards, whose data is distorted when uploaded to the central election computer, are one example of the problems facing electronic voting machines, according to Kurz. The spokeswoman for Chaos Computer Club criticized the manufacturers of voting machines who normally oppose the disclosure of their concepts and thus "give the trade secret a higher priority than the demand for transparent elections." She expressed the hope that electronic election machines could be phased out by the next presidential election in 2012, due to increasing public criticism and a looming lack of trust for politicians. Until then, however, manipulations are possible, said Kurz. One of the goals of the Chaos Computer Club is to expose security risks to the public, not just in Europe, but internationally. Most recently, it has acquired and published the fingerprint of German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble to protest against the use of biometric data in German passports. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Generally accepted wisdom holds that people across the world would vote for Barack Obama for president, if they could. Not true, says Dominique Moisi, founder of the French Institute for International Relations (Ifri) and professor at the College of Europe in Poland. Moisi argues that while it is correct that Europeans favor Obama, most Asians, especially the elites, prefer John McCain. "The perception that Obama can transform the view that the U.S. and the West have of themselves is an important factor in the emotional gap that may exist between Asia and Europe on the eve of America's presidential election. On that count, Asia tends to be a status quo continent, while Europe is a revisionist one. For many Europeans, a reinvention of America is Europe's last hope." That, in a nutshell, is Moisi's thesis why Europeans favor Obama and Asians root for McCain. You can find an English version of his editorial here, and a German version here. Moisi's thesis is intriguing, but unfortunately not backed up by any evidence. In making his case that Asians, especially Asian elites, lean towards McCain, Moisi mentions five countries: Indonesia, Japan, China, India and Singapore. Indonesia, according to Moisi, is an Asian "anomaly" as it favors Obama, because he lived there briefly as a child. That leaves four other countries: Japanese elites, writes Moisi, "tend to favor continuity over change," prefer American hard power over soft power, and perceive the U.S. mainly as counter-balance to China. "The Chinese, too, may very likely be favoring McCain, for the opposite reason," opines Moisi. "The decline of America's image and influence in the world does not annoy them. As Asia's leading power, China has seized the mantle of "hope" from the U.S. America could regain it under Obama, but not under McCain. Why favor change, when continuity works so well for you?" Indians also favor McCain, argues Moisi, because they have a positive view of the Bush administration, since it helped establish India's international status. Finally, a "very conservative regime" in Singapore "naturally tends to prefer a Republican candidate over a Democrat." Let's look at the individual countries (without Indonesia) that Moisi mentions to make his case: According to a new Gallup poll, two-thirds of Japanese adults surveyed said they "personally rather see" Obama elected than McCain. 15 percent would prefer McCain over Obama, 18 percent had no opinion. Contrary to Moisi's thesis, Gallup finds that "Obama may be tapping into the Japanese public's broader desire for change at a time when the country's politics may be viewed as stagnant and corrupt." Perhaps Moisi is still correct and Japan's elite - whoever that may be - favors McCain, but that would point to a huge disconnect between Japanese citizens and the country's elite. The more likely scenario is that even among Japan's elite - whoever that may be - McCain is not the clear preference that Moisi makes him out to be. Polls surveying exactly how the Chinese feel about Obama and McCain are hard to find. But according to China Daily, an online poll conducted on its website by the U.S. embassy, shows that "Obama enjoys the support of 75 percent among the Chinese." In the same article, the paper quotes a survey by Horizon Research that found that roughly 36 percent Chinese "pay close attention" to the U.S. presidential race. "Even among these people, Obama's supporters exceed McCain's by 17.8 percent." So according to China Daily, a government-controlled paper, the Chinese favor Obama and not, as Moisi argues, McCain. As for India, according to a new Gallup poll, a huge majority (91 percent) of people said they "don't know when they were asked whom did they prefer as the next President of the U.S., or simply refused to give an answer." While this doesn't indicate Indians favor Obama, it certainly also doesn't show a preference for McCain. As far as the elites go of whom Moisi speaks, The Times of India, the country's largest English-language paper, recently published a leader article favoring Obama. And in Singapore, Obama bests McCain by a margin of two to one, finds a new Gallup poll. Moisi is certainly correct that Asians are not as enthusiastic about Obama as Europeans. But to conclude from that that McCain is the favored candidate by Asians or Asian elites is not supported by any facts. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| If one had to pick the member of the Bush administration that was the least disliked internationally, it would have to be Colin Powell. So obviously the fact that President George W. Bush's former secretary of state went public to endorse Barack Obama didn't go unnoticed across the pond. Here's a selection of how the international media reacted: "Powell's endorsement could prove to be very valuable to Obama," says Dutch paper Trouw (via dradio.de) and elaborates: "It tells voters who wonder whether Obama is too inexperienced in foreign policy that they don't need to worry because even the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces apparently doesn't see that as a problem. This is a alarm signal for Republicans. McCain's fellow party members don't seem to believe he has a chance fof winning, and more and more of them are turning away from him." Germany's stern.de offers this analysis: "Powell's late endorsement is ominous for McCain because, in the worst case, Powell could function as the decisive domino that sets Obama's victory in motion. But even if in the end only a few voters are convinced by Powells arguments, the entry of the former general costs important time for McCain. In the next few days, the U.S. media will concern themselves predominantely with Powell. McCain will probably be hard-pressed to get his message across to the voters. For McCain, this is a harsh blow, because the time for a comeback is slowly running out." "Former secretary of state Powell has endorsed Obama – and his support is more far- reaching than many other statements of support for the Democratic candidate," argues Norway's Dagbladet (via dradio.de). "Powell's endorsement of Obama is not aimed at the Republican candidate McCain: Both are Vietnam veterans and have tremendous respect for one another. Powell also said himself that he doesn't seek political office," writes the paper and adds: "But as secretary of defense in Obama's cabinet, he would face a daunting task. Powell, in that position, would have the responsibilty for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and would thereby help Obama to honor his campaign promise." "Powells support for Obama invalidates the Republican presidential candidate's central argument that Obama is a risky choice," comments Swiss daily Die Südostschweiz. "In any case, McCain's charge of terrorism, and lately also socialism, against Obama appear more and more desperate." And finally, Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent for The Australian, in a blog post with the title "The Powell Bombshell" offers this prediction: "Endorsements often don’t shift many votes, but Powell is one of the most popular centrist figures in the U.S. (80 percent favorability rating), and it will likely help Obama win over some undecided moderates." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| I really didn't want to write about Joe the Plumber (JtP). Not that I have anything against Joe Wurzelbacher. Quite to the contrary, I have grown very fond of his very German-sounding name, which I had actually never come across in Germany. (According to this database, the name Wurzelbacher is listed only eight times in German phone books.) And I wish him all the best for his plumbing career and hope he makes a lot more than the 250,000 dollars that everyone is talking about now. The reason why I didn't want to write about JtP is simply that I think that his life story and plumbing expertise is not really necessary to understand the larger political question at issue between Barack Obama and John McCain: Should the tax cuts that both Obama and McCain envisage include the rich or not, and at what dollar amount should one be considered to be rich? That is a fair enough question for a campaign during a financial crisis, but how can JtP contribute to answering that question? It is understandable that both sides would try to turn Joe into a living example of what McCain or Obama's tax plans or political philosophy would mean for the middle class, the rich, or up-and-coming entrepreneurs. JtP as a pars pro toto for the whole American nation. Again, I just don't think it is necessary. Everyone who is half-way paying attention to the economic aspects of the campaign – its number one topic – will know whether he or she would be hurt or benefit from Obama's tax plans. And everyone will also have a sense from his or her own experience and life experience at what dollar amount the definition of rich should start. People then will make up their minds and vote accordingly. To know what Joe the Plumber (with or without his plumbing license) would or wouldn't do is probably not all that enlightened. So why, you may ask, have I broken my vow not to write about JtP and devoted an entire post to him? Because to my deep disappointment, it is not just Americans who are talking incessantly about Mr. Wurzelbacher. The entire world is: "Joe the Plumber, the star of the internet," writes France's L'Express, "Joe the Plumber bursts into the campain," reads the headline of Spain's daily El Pais and Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet asks "Who is Joe the Plumber?" But the best international story on JtP clearly comes from Germany's Tagesspiegel, which starts its nice tongue-in-cheek article with the English headline "The Wurzelbacher Conspiracy." So there you have it. And since the whole world is fascinated by JtP, we here at Across the Pond simply had to bite the bullet and write about JtP as well. Which we have done now. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Today the Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for president. While the Post's support for Obama isn't necessarily a surprise, the London Times' endorsement of the Democratic candidate is. The Times is owned by Rupert Mudoch's News Corporation and is considered to be a conservative-leaning paper. For the Times, Obama has the potential needed to be president. McCain is an "authentic hero" and "a brave politician," but his time "has gone." The reason: "His campaign has failed to inspire and his eccentric choice of a running-mate was irresponsible," opines the paper. It is still unclear exactly where Obama stands on many issues and how he will deal with them, argues the Times. "The biggest question, for a European, over an Obama presidency is whether he would prove able to face up to the security challenges. It is impossible to be certain. But his words, for instance on Pakistan and Iran, have been reassuring." However, in one crisis situation, the economy, Obama "has been better advised, shown better judgement, and been better at keeping his cool." Therefore, the Times "hopes that the outcome will be an Obama victory." Just a few weeks back, Rupert Murdoch, in an interview with Fox News, called Obama's economic policy "naïve" and stated that "he was very worried." Obama, said Murdoch, "is a very intelligent man. But his policy of anti-globalization, protectionism, is going to be — and card checks — are going to do two or three things. It's going to give us a lot of inflation. They're going to ruin our relationships with the rest of the world. And they are going to slow down the rest of the world, too. And they're going to make people frightened to add to employment." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| John McCain was really good in the debate, conclude the global media after last night's final presidential debate. But he was bested by Barack Obama. The Democratic contender didn't even need a stellar performance to come out victorious, all he had to do was not make any major mistakes. According to international media, now it's Obama's election to lose. "Want to bet that Obama wins the election," reads the headline of Jan-Kees Emmer's blog post about the debate for Dutch daily De Telegraaf. "One expert thinks that the chance that a meteorite will fall on your head is higher than McCain's chance of winning. Realistically, only a national catastrophe or a war can save McCain." "McCain gained some ground, especially on economic issues," writes Jörg Lau, who blogged about the event for Germany's weekly Die Zeit. "He came across as more concerned, warmer and not so aloof as usual. But then he overdid it with Ayers and he just couldn't stop attacking Obama relentlessly," observes Lau. He points out that Obama scored on the issues of education and abortion, but that he wasn't brilliant. "What was important for him was to get people used to the fact that he could be president soon and that that doesn't seem too bizzare. He achieved that. McCain, on the other hand, at times seemed very tense, which is understandable. Winners don't look like that." The Times of India offers this take on the debate: "In the end, it was body language that appeared to let McCain down more than his debating skills, although he seemed to lose steam as the 90 minute event progressed. As they battled for points, McCain was repeatedly caught on camera grimacing, looking agitated, even angry. He seemed to clench his teeth and at one time rolled his eyes contemptuously at Obama's answer. In contrast, Obama looked cool, calm, and composed, and ignored McCain's interruptions several times." All the odds are now in Obama's favor, argues the paper: "With less than three weeks to go for the elections, Obama now appears to have an insurmountable lead, including in some historically Republican leaning states such as Virginia. Most pundits seem to think it will require a miracle for John McCain to pull off a victory, although no one is putting it past a war veteran who survived for five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam." One can almost feel sorry for John McCain, opines Austria's daily Kurier. "He has one of his best campaign performances; he takes his gloves off to attack his opponent and finally during the final TV debate at times shows the quick-wittedness which his followers love about him. But it didn't help him. One could almost have the impression that the 72-year-old senator could have put on the most brilliant performance of his life – the audience would still see it differently. The winner of the evening was once more Obama, and his lead grows and grows." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In Austria's recent national election, voters gave a big boost to the country's far-right. So it is interesting to note that an online poll finds that the overwhelming majority of Austrians would vote for Barack Obama as president. According to the survey, conducted by market research firm psychonomics and reported by Austrian news agency APA, 79 percent of Austrians favor the Democratic presidential candidate and only seven percent would like to see John McCain in the White House. Asked to rate who they think is better prepared to lead the world out of the financial crisis, 65 percent of Austrians answered Barack Obama, only seven percent said John McCain. The poll finds that Obama doesn't only garner the support of voters of the Social Democratic and Green parties (89 percent) and of the conservative ÖVP party (80 percent), but surprisingly also voters of the far-right parties FPÖ (72 percent) and BZÖ (69 percent). Obama's immense popularity in Europe and the world is well known. But to my knowledge, even Obama's best international ratings have never been anywhere near his performance in Austria's state Vorarlberg: 100 percent. Just for good measure: John McCain polled best in the Austrian state of Carinthia. His take: 19 percent. How to explain the huge difference between the results of the national election and the results of the poll? According to pollster psychonomics, the results of the survey are only representative of Austrian internet users (i.e., 67 percent of all Austrians claim market researcher GFK Austria). And they, says psychonomics, tend to be young and highly educated. Aha, so now we know. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A topic that hasn't been discussed at all during the presidential campaign is the candidates' stance toward the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court, based in The Hague, deals with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and was authorized through a treaty signed by 108 countries. The U.S. originally signed the treaty, later unsigned it and has not ratified it, therefore it is not bound by the treaty. The reason: The Bush administration is "concerned that its soldiers and government officials could be subjected to politicized prosecutions." So what are the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on the ICC? Since both candidates haven't addressed the issue in the campaign, the AP asked McCain and Obama about it. While Obama and McCain are in favor of a standing tribunal to deal with war crimes, they share President Bush's anxiety about the potential of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials or soldiers, writes the AP. "They do not share, however, what has been at times Bush's outright hostility to the court." Mark Lippert, a foreign affairs adviser for Obama, acknowledged that the ICC has a lower priority than nonproliferation, Iran and Afghanistan. "But it registers on (Obama's) radar," Lippert told the AP. He added that the Democratic candidate "has a wait-and-see, go-slow approach. The policy is unchanged from where he has been." According to the AP, team McCain did not respond to its request to talk about the ICC, but the Republican candidate has given the following written response to questions from an international legal affairs organization about the matter: "I want us in the ICC, but I'm not satisfied that there are enough safeguards." Judging from those statements, it looks like both Obama and McCain would continue - in substance, if not in style - the position held by the Bush administration. After all, this is an area of foreign policy where there hasn't been much daylight - in substance, if not in style - between the last Democratic president Bill Clinton and his Republican successor. (You can find a comparison of Clinton's and Bush's positions toward the ICC here.) While American participation in the ICC may not be an important topic in the U.S., it is internationally. With the rejection of the Kyoto protocol and the Iraq war, the U.S. stance toward the International Criminal Court was routinely mentioned as a typical example of American unilateralism. So for all those interested whether a new administration would rethink its approach to the ICC, the bipartisan bottom line is this: Don't expect a sudden reversal of Washington's stance toward the ICC from either Barack Obama or John McCain. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| How should the next president deal with Russia and Iran? We have written about the limited options the next administration has for tackling what are generally considered to be the biggest foreign policy challenges facing Barack Obama or John McCain. Now an editorial by Vali Nasr in the Wall Street Journal proposes a novel thesis that could be summed up like this: The U.S. should engage with Iran to confront Russia. According to Nasr, "Washington cannot resist a Russian sphere of influence stretching from the Black Sea to Aral Mountains unless it plays the Iran card to its advantage." In order to do that the U.S. would have to change its position on these issues, writes Nasr: - Drop objection to the flow of Iranian gas to Europe - Engage Iran in talks on security and stability in the Caucasus region - Accept building the planned new pipelines on the back of Iranian gas - "Freeing Europe of Russia's clutches" is more important than "punishing Iran for its nuclear program" Russia's military action in Georgia has altered the way Iranians view the country. As a consequence, says Nasr, Tehran is ready to talk to the U.S. about how to act jointly vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia. Thus, for Nasr, the decision is clear: "Talking to Iran is good Russia policy" because "only by engaging Iran will America draw a wedge between Moscow and Tehran and weaken Russia's hand." Let's assume Nasr's ultra-realist strategy, which sounds like a new version of the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," works out and helps contain Russia. That still doesn't answer the question about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program. What's more, Nasr's dichotomy "Freeing Europe from the clutches of Russia" versus "Punishing Iran for its nuclear program" in itself is debatable. First, so far the common goal of the U.S. and the EU wasn't to punish Iran for its nuclear program, but to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which is an important distinction. Second, whether Europe is really in the clutches of Russia is still a point of discussion. And third, whether containing a resurgent Russia has a higher priority than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is equally questionable. So what do you think? Is it a sound strategy for the next president to play off Iran versus Russia? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In an interview with suddeutsche.de, Germany's former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher gave his perspective on the current financial crisis, the future global role of countries like China, India and Brasil, as well as NATO and the West's relations with a resurgent Russia, the conflict in Afghanistan, and why he favors Barack Obama as the next U.S. president. Genscher, a member of the Free Democrats (FDP), who was once called "A Man with a Dream" by the New York Times, was Germany's longest serving Foreign Minister (1974-1992). In the interview, he strongly criticized the Bush administration and expressed his hope that a new administration will mend the ties between the U.S. and Europe. Here are just a few highlights of the interview focusing on the presidential campaign and transatlantic relations. You can read the entire interview (in German) here. When asked whether a new president would bring a new political style to the White House, Genscher said: "One can only hope that the new president understands that no country in the world is and can be so strong as to dominate the rest of the world. That, by the way, is one of the secrets of success of European unity. The success of Europe became possible because there were three big and three small founding countries. They had to learn how to get along and the bigger countries each had to check in their demand to be the biggest at the cloak room. In my opinion, that is Europe's message to the world: We have shown how to do it – not the law of the strongest country is imperative, but the power of the law is imperative." Does Genscher feel that both candidates are equally committed to lead the U.S. away from the old unipolar way of thinking, asked sueddeusche.de. "Both candidates have been very careful in their statements. Barack Obama, in my estimation, is more open for an equal partnership than John McCain. I like what Obama has said about transatlantic cooperation, namely that it should take place on the same eye level. As U.S. president, he could do a lot and bring back the trust that was lost." Genscher added: "Think about what John F. Kennedy said decades ago: The transatlantic partnershift rests on two columns – Europeans and Americans. With the current American administration, one feels that there is one column and and many little columns, i.e., 'old Europe' and 'new Europe.' This is an alarming antagonism to the thinking of the administration of Bush senior and (James) Baker." On the criticism that Obama is inexperienced, especially on foreign policy, Genscher told sueddeutsche.de: "There is a misconceived opinion that the other candidate has been president before. Neither of them has experience as president. When I became foreign minister I also had no experience as foreign minister. There is a first time for everything." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to provide you with information and perspectives you probably won't get anywhere else. In that effort, we have shared with you not only our German and American takes on international aspects of the presidential election, but also how the campaign is perceived around the world from Switzerland to Brasil, from Hungary to Ireland. One country whose position on the U.S. election we have so far ignored is Luxembourg's. You may ask why would I care how people in the small Grand Duchy feel about Barack Obama and John McCain? And sure, Luxembourg is not an important player on the international political stage. But it is an important actor on the world's financial stage, i.e. the country is the second largest center for investment funds after the U.S. Therefore, it is interesting what the take on the campaign is in Luxembourg, especially in light of the current global financial crisis. And as luck would have it, this is exactly the focus of the main editorial in the country's leading daily, Luxemburger Wort. According to the paper, McCain as an "unconditional supporter of an ultraliberal market economy definitely personifies an economic and social order that has failed and that no one really wants to see continued. In the U.S., the time for a new "New Deal" has come," opines the paper. "Barack Obama - even before the financial crisis - hit a nerve with his interpretation of the "American Dream," which is based on social balance." For the Luxemburger Wort, McCain symbolizes an America that is backwards-looking. McCain would be the oldest president in the history of the country to take office, which the paper calls not really a sign of renewal. A president McCain would also pose a security risk, because his vice president would be Sarah Palin, whose lack of qualification Americans noticed rather quickly, comments the paper. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| A win by Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election would be a break with the past, but it wouldn't be the end of racial problems in American society, the Reverend Jesse Jackson told Swiss news agency sda while at the World Policy Conference in Evian, France. Jackson said, Obama - contrary to his opponent John McCain - had run a "disciplined campaign." He added that an Obama victory should be used to open other important doors for African-Americans such as positions as governors or senators. Jackson told sda that African-Americans have been hardest hit by the sub-prime crisis and still have the shortest life expectancy in the U.S. About the situation in Iraq, Jackson said, regardless of the next president's skin color, he should end the war in Iraq. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 08.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama is the winner of Tuesday's second presidential debate, reads the pretty much unanimous verdict of international media outlets, a day after the encounter between Obama and John McCain. The Republican candidate missed his chance, opines German business daily Financial Times Deutschland (FTD). "In his ideal setting, the town hall format, this should have been a great night for John McCain. His chance to stop his sliding poll numbers. But his problem last night was that there was another guy in the room selling himself to voters as someone who understands their problems." And in the end, writes the FTD, according to a CNN poll, people declared Obama the winner. "If the world looked the same as two weeks ago, the audience might even have called the debate a tie. But the downward spiral of collapsing financial markets has increased the desire for change in the White House. A Democrat, who doesn't make a mistake, is automatically the winner on an evening like this." "McCain doesn't seem to care much for fair play," thinks Switzerlands Tages-Anzeiger. He committed a big foul in last night's debate." By refering to Obama as "that one" he violated the rules of etiquette in front of an audience of millions. "While Obama didn't seem rattled by the incident, McCain after the remark appeared to be a little beside himself. The entire evening McCain didn't mention his biggest trump so far, Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, with one word. And at the end of the event, he even refused to shake Obama's hand. Usually only sore losers behave like that," comments the paper. "Obama wins as McCain shows shades of McNasty" reads the headline of Alex Spillius' blog post at Britain's Daily Telegraph. Calling it a "boring day" in the campaign, "Tuesday night's debate was what we expect from politicians: half-answered questions, predictable answers and few specifics. Barack Obama won because he didn't lose. John McCain, trailing in the polls, needed to make a breakthrough, but was unable to take the opportunity in what is his preferred format for campaigning: the town hall meeting." "Obama won the second television debate with McCain on Tuesday," writes Dutch paper De Volkskrant. Independent voters felt that Obama came across as more trustworthy and had better answers on economic issues than his opponent. This despite the fact that "McCain was in his element in the more spontaneous town hall format in Nashville. Walking around with a microphone and answering questions by voters is his speciality, which was clearly visible." But, adds the paper, McCain made the mistake of refering to Obama as 'that one.'" |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| With the campaign heating up during the last month before the election, John McCain and the Republican National Committee (RNC) charge that Barack Obama's campaign accepted money from foreign donors, which is illegal under U.S. law. After an article by Michael Isikoff about questionable donations, the RNC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) accusing Obama of "knowingly accepting excessive contributions and donations from foreign nationals" and calling it "a wide-scale problem." While Isikoff's piece focused on two questionable donations amounting to less than $30,000, the New York Times checked out the RNC charge that the Obama camp has a wide-scale problem with foreign donations. According to the Times, Obama received $3.3 million in contributions in which the donor listed an abbreviation other than that of the 50 U.S. states and territories. That amounts to one percent of the $270 million raised by Obama. John McCain, writes the Times, took in $517,000 from such donors. Just because donations originate outside the U.S. doesn't make them illegal. As the Times points out, as long as the donor is an American or green card holder, donations are legal even if the person resides outside the U.S. So what is the effect of this on the campaign? And is it, as Marc Ambinder suggests, a "directed, political tactic designed to raise questions about Obama's foreign-ness and otherness." As the British Independent points out "accepting money from foreigners is definitely a no-no" and "it is raising a red flag over whether the Obama camp has been doing enough to police where the cash is coming from." But the amount in question is roughly only one percent of Obama's total donations and, as noted by the New York Times and First Read, there probably won't be any action by the FEC until after the election. One more reason why the RNC's complaint probably won't have a big impact on the rest of the campaign is that John McCain has his own issues with questionable donations and has been queried by the FEC. As for Ambinder's suggestion, of course the RNC's complaint is a "tactic" to damage Obama. But that is not really unusual for an election campaign. Whether it was as "directed" and politically motivated as Ambinder seems to insinuate is debatable, as the charge is basically fallout from various news reports rather than a long planned campaign tactic. And to think the RNC launched the charge with the specific and well thought out goal to question Obama's "foreign-ness and otherness" may be giving more credit than is due. The answer may be far simpler: With McCain down in the polls, a festering financial crisis that won't help their candidate, and less than a month to go before the election, the McCain campaign might just take whatever issue it can get, toss it at Obama, and see whether it sticks. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| In a series on the presidential election, the National Journal's James Kitfield takes an interesting look at foreign policy issues and how they might affect the next presidency. What to do about Iraq and Afghanistan is not the big foreign policy question for November 4, argues Kitfield. Instead, the key question is how to handle the multitude of potential confrontations that are yet to come. "Put simply, the next commander-in-chief will have to decide whether these confrontations become wars and what exactly is worth fighting for." Russia and Iran, according to Kitfield, fall under the category described above and pose the biggest challenges to the U.S. in the future. Both exemplify the foreign policy shift that has occurred during the campaign. Russia is classified as a long-term challenge by the National Journal, while Iran is termed a short-term threat. Barack Obama and John McCain may have different approachs on dealing with Russia, but no matter which of them becomes president, the next president will have limited options, Stratfor's George Friedman told the magazine. The result is, says Friedman, that "neither Obama nor McCain wants to talk about the issue of Russia in depth because the answers are unpleasant -- either we withdraw some of the security guarantees we've been granting around its borders, or we spend a lot more on defense." If the differences between Obama and McCain on how to treat Russia are clear, they are stark on Iran. "The Republican has hewed closely to the neoconservative policy adopted in the first Bush term and advocated by hardliners such as former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, writes Kitfield and adds "McCain rejects high-level negotiations outright, for example, and has stated unequivocally that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to acquire the nuclear bomb." Obama also finds Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons "unacceptable," but argues for direct negotiations with Iran without preconditions. "Even if such talks fail, he says, the attempt at diplomacy would make it easier to assemble a tougher international sanctions regime to contain Iran", writes Kitfield. "In so arguing, the Democrat puts himself squarely in the centrist camp of foreign policy experts who say that even a nuclear-armed Iran can be contained." Unfortunately, Kitfield's article doesn't really ask the key question with regard to Iran. Despite the campaign rhetoric, especially from McCain, are the realistic options the next president and the EU have on how to deal with Iran not even more limited than the options vis-à-vis Russia? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Considering her inexperience, compared to her opponent and political veteran Joe Biden, Sarah Palin held her own in the vice presidential debate. That's – in a nutshell – the snap verdict of the international media a day after the debate in St. Louis. Here's a sampling of opinion from Germany, Italy, Denmark, Mexico and Austria: "Contrary to the hopes of the Democrats, Sarah Palin during the debate with Joe Biden didn't faint, call for the bombing of Iran, or demand the taring and feathering of the heads of Wall Street, argues Germany's Die Welt. "She didn't embarrass herself, she held her own." The paper adds: "In the second foreign policy part of the debate, Biden grew increasingly stronger while Palin often appeared to recite what she had previously learned by heart." "The expectations for Sarah Palin were so low that it has to viewed as a victory that she didn't do any further damage to presidential candidate John McCain", opines Danish Berlingske Tidende (via dradio.de). "After the American voters have had some time to think about this first impression they will wonder whether Palin's performance really qualifies her for the post of vice president." Both, Biden and Palin, like to hear themselves talk, says Italy's Corriere della Sera (via dradio.de). "Palin, because she tries to bury under a moutain of words that she is not familiar with relevant issues. Biden, on the other hand, talks a lot because he knows too much and because he is a tad egocentric. He is certainly better qualified than Palin." "The Republican candidate for vice president didn't let her Democratic opponent Joe Biden intimidate her, even though he has far more media experience", argues Mexico's La Cronica de Hoy (via dradio.de). "The political crash course she has received the evening before the debate at John McCain's ranch bore fruit." "After a lackluster start Palin became more secure with every strike she landed against Biden", opines Austria's Wiener Zeitung. "Overall – almost all media concur – Palin did surprisingly good. For this reason John McCain's running mate functioned exactly at the right time, because his popularity - after a brief high - had recently started to diminish again. The good performance by his partner may counteract this trend", writes the paper. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.10.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Because of Barack Obama's rapid political rise, his immense popularity with various groups of people, and his ability to draw thousands of fans to his public speeches in the U.S. and abroad, some conservative commentators have labeled Obama followers a cult and Obama the "messiah." I have always considered these accusations nothing more than a sign of partisan envy. Just because McCain doesn't energize the Republican base and is not able to attract the masses to his speeches, doesn't make a cult out of Obama supporters. But after watching this video featuring children singing about Obama, which has been circulating on the internet and has received media attention since it was linked to via the Drudge Report, I am starting to wonder whether the phenomenon we all have matter-of-factly called Obamamania deserves a closer look. To me it is scary seeing young children praising a political leader in a seemingly professionally choreographed setting. At first, I thought, perhaps as a German I am overly sensitive to things like this. After all, what's wrong with some kids singing about a politician they like? So I am glad that I am not the only one who has a problem with this video. Ben Smith and Mo Rocca have interesting takes on the issue. But beyond its creepiness factor, what are we to deduct from this video? Assuming Obama becomes president, a lot of his supporters with expectations like those expressed in the video are bound to be bitterly disappointed, because those expectations are impossible to be fulfilled by a president. |
||||||||
|
||||||||