| 31.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| For the first and last time here at Across the Pond I am writing not about international affairs but about our blog itself. I usually eschew writing about one's journalistic product and processes, because first, I believe the product should speak for itself and second, I don't think many readers are interested in journalists explaining how and why they do what they do. But in this case, it's different since we will close Across the Pond at the end of March and this will be my last post. So why are we ending our transatlantic blogging venture on international affairs from a German and American perspective? Our original goal was to cover the U.S. election from a unique transatlantic perspective. But to be honest, when we launched Across the Pond a year ago we had no idea whether it would work. Would there be an audience for this kind of a blog? Could we get Across the Pond linked by relevant blogs and sites? Would we have the creativity and stamina to write entries on a daily basis? In hindsight, I believe we can answer all those questions with a resounding yes. Our blog project with two journalists posting from across the pond did work. There definitely was an audience for a blog like ours as evidenced by the many comments and traffic we have received. It was rewarding to see how many important sites noticed our work and linked, often repeatedly, to Across the Pond (among them, Time Magazine, the Huffington Post, Politico, the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, the Council on Foreign Relations to name just a few). And I believe that, for the most part, we possessed the ideas and endurance to keep the blog fresh and interesting. So why are we quitting Across the Pond then? The answer is simple: This project from the beginning was only meant to cover the U.S. election. Across the Pond always was a true labor of love. It had nothing to do with our respective day jobs, so almost all of our writing was done in late evenings that often turned into late nights and on weekend afternoons. And it was a great challenge and even greater fun trying to come up with something worthwile to say every day. After the election, we continued with the blog simply driven by the journalistic impetus to also cover the first months of an historic presidency. But while an election campaign has a clear focus, timeline and political players, covering the foreign policy of a historic presidency with its abundance of topics, venues and players is a whole different ballgame. And while I am confident that Tim and I would be able to report on the vast field that is American foreign policy under Obama as well, it won't be possible under the conditions and framework of Across the Pond. But could there be a better moment to sign off as when President Obama embarks on his first official visit to Europe one year after we launched Across the Pond? I think not. In closing, let me first thank all the readers and commentators who have followed Across the Pond over the past year. You are the reason why we started this blog. I hope you enjoyed reading the blog at least as half as much as I had writing it. Second, a big thank you goes out to my blogging alter ego Tim in Washington. Without him, Across the Pond wouldn't have been possible. Tim is the only person I know who is equally well versed in writing about boxing and analyse the advantages of a southpaw as in writing about foreign policy and analyse domestic surveillance practices. He is not only an excellent reporter with flawless copy, but just has an amazing knack to find and explain the one aspect of the major story that every one else has overlooked. And last but not least, Tim is not just a great journalist, but also a good friend. Thanks again Tim. Final thanks are also due to my wife, who for a year had to not only endure a husband hogging the family computer at night. She also had to deal with a frequently sleep-deprived partner. What's more, especially in the early months of Across the Pond, she was of invaluable help telling me what did or what didn't work. Thank you. While we won't update Across the Pond any longer, it will remain online and can perhaps serve as an instant history file of the Obama election. Thank you and so long! |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Analysing the continuing rift between Europe and the U.S. how best to overcome the financial crisis, Robert Kuttner argues that both are right. President Barack Obama, writes Kuttner, is correct to demand that European countries, especially the continent's biggest economy Germany, do more to stimulate spending. But the Europeans are equally right to demand that international regulation of the financial system is given high priority. While I generally agree with his analysis, he and many other critics of Europe's alleged meager stimulus policy, miss an important point. Compared to the U.S. many European countries have a much tighter social security and welfare net. In times of crises, this provides an important buffer against the most severe effects of the recession. In other words: The social and welfare act as a kind of automatic stimulus in many European countries. If those effects are factored in, the size of the German stimulus package for instance is basically on par with that of the U.S. An excellent analysis of this phenomenon can be found of all places in the Wall Street Journal. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| It's another sign that the Eastern European missile defense shield planned by President George W. Bush is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon. The Czech government withdrew a scheduled ratification vote on the treaty from the lower house of parliament. While Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek pointed out that the pull back didn't mean the end of the ratification process, he added that he would reconsider it after talks with U.S. President Barack Obama at the upcoming NATO summit in France and Germany. Given the Obama administration's sceptical stance toward missile defense it seems unlikely that Obama will press Topolanek hard on that issue. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| In a fascinating article, Ryan Grim examines how the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in recent months has literally pumped billions of dollars into central banks around the world. As Grim points out - and I concur -, this aspect of the global financial crisis hasn't been reported by mainstream media previously. In essence, writes Grim, the Fed has been acting as the world's central bank since last year in a move that is a clear step into territory usually occupied by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to the article, 314 billion dollars are currently loaned to international central banks by the Federal Reserve, down from almost 600 billion in December. The central banks use the money to rescue financial institutions in their own countries. The transactions, writes Grim, are conducted as swaps, whereby the Fed receives the equal amount of its loan in foreign currency. As a consequence of this money injection program, the Fed and other global central banks are very tighly linked to each other. If everything goes well and the central banks can repay their loans, this is not a problem. Difficulties for both sides could arise, if central banks can't repay their loans and thus internationalize their problem. European countries participating in this program, according to Grim are, Denmark, Britain, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. To read the article in the Huffington Post click here. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| They did it again: U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner once more called on other countries to do more to stimulate their economies. The answer by most European countries is equally predictable: Ah, no. Just a few days ago, the Eurozone nations rather resolutely rejected demands by the U.S. that European countries increase their own stimulus packages to combat the financial crisis. It wasn't the first time that European governments gave Washington the cold shoulder. In February, Germany's outspoken Finance Minister warned that the U.S. stimulus efforts could lead to a new global bubble. The continuing transatlantic spat intensifies just weeks before the crucial G-20 meeting in London in April, and one day before Geithner travels to Britain for a finance minister meeting in preparation for the summit. The expectations and the stakes for the G-20 meeting are high. It is the first major global meeting with Obama and Geithner representing the U.S., and it comes at a time when the fallout of the financial crisis can be felt across the world. At the important G-20 meeting in Washington late last year, Obama was not sworn in yet. At the second major international economic event of the last months, the Global Economic Forum in Davos in late January, Obama and his team had just taken office and were not present. At the G-20 meeting in London, Obama and Geithner need, and are expected, to produce something. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| I usually don't plug things here, but if you are a movie buff and a foreign policy wonk, you should check out The Godfather Doctrine, a book by John Hulsman and Wess Mitchell. But be warned. If you expect a purely cinematic analysis of the classic Godfather movie, or scholarly ruminations about international affairs, you might be disappointed. The Godfather Doctrine, based on the authors' piece in the National Interest last year, is a brief, concise, and, yes, entertaining political parable against the backdrop of the quintessential Mafia flick. I read it in a couple of hours. The authors apply the various philosophical approaches taken by the Corleone sons in reaction to the shooting of the family patriarch to the world of foreign policy. Which of the three principals representing different philosophical schools, Tom Hagen (liberal institutionalism), Sonny (neoconservatism) or Michael (realism) should the U.S. emulate in its foreign policy? The authors fun to read and convincing answer is, of course, realism. Even more interesting than their answer though is the hands-on style in which Hulsman and Mitchell arrive at their thesis. Full disclosure: I have known John Hulsman for a few years through some political roundtables in the U.S. and Germany and a hearty breakfast in Berlin. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| The reactions President Barack received for his proposal to talk to "moderate Taliban" are different in style, but not very different in substance from the comments Germany's former head of the Social Democratic Party, Kurt Beck, got: Mostly negative. Jason Burke argues in the Guardian that talking to the Taliban has been tried on the local level for some time - and it has failed. According to a Reuters story, many experts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are skeptical of Obama's talk offer to the Taliban, questioning whether there are any "moderate Taliban," and calling negotiations with them useless. And Peter Bergen, an al Qaeda expert with the New America Foundation, cautions against making deals with the Taliban. America's allies have been equally cautious in their response to the President's proposal. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said possible negotiations with moderate elements of the Taliban are primarily a decision of the government in Kabul. He added that the Afghan government must make sure that Taliban involved in possible talks have to distance themselves from violence. Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said pretty much the same thing: "If the Afghan government at the end of the day desires to go out there and have discussions with people who fundamentally will renounce any forms of violence, we're quite comfortable with that," Cannon told public broadcaster CBC. The best analysis I could find of why talking to the Taliban makes sense comes from Robert Dreyfus in the Nation who argues that given the dire prospects for Afghanistan the U.S. will have to strike a deal with the Taliban sooner or later. And the price for the most sardonic reply to Obama's proposal goes to David Rothkopf. And finally: Not surprisingly the Taliban flat out rejected Obama's proposal calling it "illogical." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Barack Obama's proposal to talk to moderate Taliban is especially big news in Germany. Why? Two years ago, the then head of the SPD, Kurt Beck, had pretty much the same idea. Negotiate with moderate elements in the Taliban, he suggested. The feedback he received from political colleagues and the media was mostly negative. There's no way we can negotiate with the Taliban, so the general opinion went. Now, a new American President comes up with the same idea and the reaction is quite different. Here's a couple of editorial reactions from Austria and Germany. "Obama does not only openly admit to the catastrophic situation, he also openly admits his helplessness," reads the editorial in Austria's Kurier. When the U.S. President speaks about a "very complex situation" and "a lot bigger challenges" than in Iraq, than this is as close to an admission of helplessness as is possible for the most powerful man of the world." The idea to solve the problems in Afghanistan through sending more troops has become a side issue, writes the paper. More importantly, adds the Kurier, there is a search of new concepts taking place right now. "That this new phase begins with the admission of failure shows that one is really willing to cast aside all ideological blinders and self-deception of the Bush era. And this is already a good start." Duesseldorf-based Rheinische Post comments: "From sarcasm to outrage went the range of reactions when the the former head of the German Social Democrats, Kurt Beck, on the occasion of a visit to Afghanistan, suggested two years ago to negotiate with "moderate Taliban." Now U.S. President Barack Obama has taken up exactly that proposal - and no one is laughing anymore," notes the paper. "The situation in the Hindukush is confused and appears more unstable than ever." According to the paper, everyone who looked objectively at Beck's supposed capitulation statement two years ago had to raise the question whether there even are any "moderate Taliban." But, adds the Rheinische Post, "President Obama is definitely right with one thing: The West simply can't bumble about anymore in Afghanistan." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Hillary Clinton's European visit has been going well. On Friday, however, according to Reuters, she caused a bit of befuddlement in Brussels. The U.S. Secretary of State claimed that American democracy "has been around at lot longer than European democracy" and misspoke the names of the EU's foreign policy heavyweights Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner. Bad faux pas? Not really. The "democracy" item is probably just a misunderstanding. It seems likely that Clinton - speaking at the European Parliament - was referring to the EU parliament and not European democracy. The European Parliament as an institution, of course, is a lot younger than U.S. democracy. That she misspoke the names of Solana and Ferrero-Waldner is slightly embarrassing, but not a major deal. It didn't cause any diplomatic problems and rather shows her human side. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| It's official: The Obamas are visiting Europe at the end of this month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced America's first couple's travel schedule in Brussels where she attended a NATO meeting. President Obama and his wife will visit Britain, Germany, France and the Czech Republic. The Europe trip will be Obama's first extended international travel and comes after visits from Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Clinton to the continent. It goes to show that Europe, despite some claims to the contrary, remains still very much on Washington's international agenda. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Here's a quick update on my recent post about Gordon Brown's idea of launching a "global New Deal" with the U.S. during his visit to Washington. On a personal level, U.S. President Barack Obama and Britain's Prime Minister apparently hit it off at their first meeting at the White House: Calling each other by their first names and talking about playing tennis together. Too bad that President Obama didn't mention the Prime Minister's big project by name at the press conference and at their lunch in the White House. But maybe he reserved that for his first official trip to 10 Downing Street. | ||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| The rationale of President Barack Obama's proposed deal with Russia is puzzling. The U.S. would scrap its planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe, if Russia gets tough on Iran's assumed nuclear development. If Moscow's new, hard stance succeeds, so goes the logic of the deal, then Tehran's assumed nuclear weapons program will be halted and there will be no need for a missile defense system anyway. As I wrote before, you can't really use something as a bargaining chip that you have already publicly disavowed. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, even before coming into office, stated their skepticism about missile defense. Trying to use it now as bargaining chip is not convincing. Having said that, it's also not in Russia's interest that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a move that would drastically alter the power equation in an important part of what Russia considers to be its sphere of influence. What's more, Iran, as the country with the second largest gas reserves after Russia, is also Moscow's only competitor as Europe's major gas supplier, which is another reason why Russia may not want to be supporting Iran too much. If Russia, in light of recent developments, decided that it ultimately doesn't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and the U.S. decided that it doesn't really want to set up a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, why are they delivering secret letters instead of simply getting together, aligning their interests and striking a deal? Perhaps Washington and Moscow are just continuing their diplomatic dance. Kremlinologists and Obamaists please feel free to elaborate. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.03.2009 |
|
||||||||
| Gordon Brown won the European race to the White House and will meet Barack Obama there on Tuesday. In a piece for the Sunday Times, he laid out his agenda for the talk with the President, calling for a global New Deal to be launched by the U.S. and Britain. The goal: To create an impact that "can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York – and giving security to the hard-working families in every country." Sounds like a tall order for the meeting between Obama and Brown. And while I am really tired of incessantly hearing the catch-all phrase "New Deal," I guess a globalized world - to use another catch-all phrase - requires some kind of binding, transnational agreement to remedy the current, and prevent future, crises. I am just skeptical that much will come of it. Why? German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU leaders over the weekend rejected to bail out Eastern Europe. French President Nicholas Sarkozy recently offered state aid to French automakers, as long as they don't close French factories. And you probably know all about the various versions of the Buy American part of the U.S. stimulus package (a policy that interestingly is supported by the Communist Party of the USA). Notice a trend? When push comes to shove, most national leaders simply focus on their clearly defined national constituency instead of an amorphous global one. With most countries struggling to save their troubled financial and automotive industries, it seems unlikely they will be willing and able to contribute to bailing out other parts of the globe, at least for now. Finally, there's the question whether Gordon Brown is the right person to fix the global financial system through a new deal. Not just conservative critics are blaming the former long-time Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least partly, for the current crisis. What do you think? |
||||||||
|
||||||||