Across The Pond | DW-WORLD

Time To Say Goodbye, Part II

Michael said it all better than I probably ever could in his "Time To Say Goodbye" explaining the shuttered doors here at Across the Pond, but let me add a few notes.

This blog brought me a lot of satisfaction for all the reasons Mr. Knigge mentioned -- it succeeded, if I may toot our own horn, beyond my wildest dreams, by getting picked up by the Los Angeles Timeses and Time magazines and the like, and by inspiring fevered debate amongst readers, and in countless other ways. It also had value to me beyond whether anyone saw it; the daily demand of blogging forced me to pay close attention to developing story lines and policy shifts and thereby enhanced my understanding of foreign policy, so I learned a good deal along the way.

Michael made me blush with his kind words, but another joy of the site was reading his work. Not only does the man truly understand U.S. politics and policy, but it was a constant delight getting his perspective on the practices of the U.S. government and candidates for office thereof. He had a special talent for catching our absurdities that only someone who didn't live here would notice, and for contrasting how we do things on this side of the pond to how they do things on his side, and it was always illuminating. Before, during and after Barack Obama's Germany trip, he made this blog THE go-to site for information and analysis, in my opinion. And he's a true pal.

If you're a regular reader, I encourage you to continue to check out all the "interesting links" along the right hand rail in lieu of us. If you value regular insights on foreign policy and politics, my friends at Foreign Policy, Porch Dog and elsewhere will leave you in good hands. DW-WORLD, too, is a great source of foreign policy information whether or not you're from Germany or focused on German news.

Thanks to Michael, thanks to Deutsche Welle and thanks to all the readers over the last year who dropped by, gave us a look, offered their quality insights and smacked us around. Farewell.

Time To Say Goodbye

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!

The Afghanistan Intelligence Puzzle

With President Obama set to announce a new strategy for Afghanistan, it's worth examining the intelligence problem posed by that country. It is, by any measure, daunting.

Max Bergmann recently wrote that saying Afghanistan is "harder" than Iraq is "Monday morning quarterbacking." After all, the United States muddled through Iraq for years before things stabilized somewhat. He has a point. And although he says the question isn't very helpful, he makes an eloquent case for it being directly relevant to the whole question of the U.S. strategy: "If we are truly committed to Afghanistan and believe that it is harder than Iraq, shouldn’t we be committing more resources and manpower to Afghanistan than we did in Iraq?"

But is Bergmann right that Afghanistan isn't "harder?" At a media roundtable I attended as a reporter for CQ, U.S. spy chief Dennis Blair said this: "We know a heck of a lot more about Iraq on a granular level than we know about Afghanistan." He was answering a question from a reporter who relayed a tale -- from not so long ago -- where military forces in Afghanistan relied on maps featuring non-existent villages. Blair said the problem went beyond maps to basic understandings of local power structures.

The United States has been in Afghanistan longer than it has been in Iraq, so the number of years spent muddling is secondary. Afghanistan IS harder, or the considerable gap between American resources spent on Iraq and Afghanistan means the United States has come to figure out Iraq in a way that it hasn't Afghanistan. Or it's both. Whatever the case, as of now, Afghanistan is harder than Iraq.

Recent news reports about a Rand study on counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan focused primarily on Afghanistan. The intelligence failures there, according to the Guardian, "border on the absurd."

Blair said the intelligence community may have a fair assessment of the overall situation in Afghanistan, but when it comes to tactical intelligence used to support operations, the spy agencies have a long way to go. And since according to the new strategy, more troops will be sent, that almost assuredly means more operations. That makes the improvement of tactical intelligence in Afghanistan vital to success there. And that won't be easy.

Obama Reaches Out A Hand; Foreign Leaders Slap It Away

Early returns are that Obama's plan to reach out to nations hostile to America isn't going to be easy.

Venezuela's Chavez calls Obama "ignoramus"

Iran’s Supreme Leader Rebuffs Obama Message

The Bold Iran Paradigm Shift By President Obama That No One (Apparently) Saw

There's no doubt that President Barack Obama's video message to the Iranian government and leadership was a bold move. It's won both considerable praise and heated denouncements.

But my question is this: What impact can it have if nobody saw it?

The AP writes, via Think Progress: "It wasn’t clear how many Iranians were able to see the video, which was not aired on state television in Iran on Friday. It was likely shown on Farsi-language TV stations beamed in from outside of the country, but many Iranians don’t watch television in the first days of long Nowruz holiday that is normally filled with family gatherings or vacations away from home." And seeing it on YouTube isn't a really viable option, either, since the Iranian government blocks the website.

About the only place an Iranian citizen could go to watch it is the White House website.

Should Europe Do More To Stimulate The Economy?

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.

Another Blow For Missile Defense

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.

Iran Options Sought, Iran Options Received

Two weeks ago, I asked what options the U.S. had for dealing with Iran.

Since, Michael has addressed one, and now my CQ colleague Adam Graham-Silverman has addressed some others.

The AGS piece is focused primarily on talks -- in contrast with the tea leaf reading from some that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for abandoning engagement -- but it delves into other options, too, paraphrasing an expert pertinent to all of this, Dennis Ross: "Tighten the noose of sanctions, engage without conditions, or pursue a hybrid option that combines negotiation and pressure." The rest of AGS' exploration is worth reading as well.

The Globalization Of The Central Banking System

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.

Two Links: Obama Doing Well On Foreign Policy

Two analyses on Sunday about the Obama foreign policy:

Fareed Zakaria praises Obama's foreign policy activity thus far, noting changes of direction on Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

The Guardian's Jonathan Freeland notes many of the same things, plus Obama activity on Cuba, Israel and others.

Both pieces leave out the missteps of the administration on foreign policy, like the failed appointment of Charles Freeman to the National Intelligence Council or the gaffe with Hillary Clinton and the Russia "reset button." But I think at least one part of their thrust is unquestionably true: It's been a busy early period on foreign policy for an administration that might be expected to focus almost all of its energy on the economy.

Spy Chief Says Economy Is "Primary Near-Term Security Concern" Of The U.S.; But Then What?

In this week's edition of CQ Weekly, I examined the recent statements of Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that the economic crisis was the "primary near-term security concern" of the United States.

He made the remarks weeks ago, and it got headlines. But no one, it seemed, had asked the next question: OK, what are the ramifications of that?

So I set about asking, and found that some people disagreed with the premise. Many saw a link between the economy and security -- after all, Al Qaeda has long made the connection, with Osama bin Laden pledging a "bleed-until-bankruptcy" strategy in 2004 -- but not to the degree Blair did. What's more, some questioned what good it would do for the intelligence community to involve itself in the question. Almost everyone I called -- some quoted in the piece, some not -- told me, "I'm so glad someone is asking these questions. I don't understand why no one has yet."

If you're not in the United States, the issue may still have ramifications for you, too. So, consider reading the piece, linked above, then if you're an early riser in the U.S., check me out on C-SPAN talking about all of it Monday at 8:30 a.m. EST. Failing that, C-SPAN's website rebroadcasts its programming on its website.

Obama And Geithner Have To Repeat Themselves Again

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.

A Foreign Policy Based On The Godfather?

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.

What Chas Freeman's Withdrawal Means

There are a lot of strong opinions out there about what Chas Freeman's withdrawal from the top National Intelligence Council position means.

It could mean the Israel lobby did him in.

It could mean the Saudi lobby isn't as powerful as sometimes thought.

It could mean the Obama administration once again failed to properly vet one of its would-be officials.

It could mean that Freeman was just plain controversial, and on more than Israel.

There's no way to do what I'm about to do without sounding wishy-washy; besides, as a reporter at CQ who covers intelligence, it would be inappropriate for me to go throwing my opinions around about any of this. My role here is more as an analyst.

But ponder the following: What if all of the above is true?

What if the Israel lobby did help do in Freeman, and the Saudi lobby didn't have the ability to offer a powerful counterpoint to complaints that Freeman worked for an organization funded in part by Saudi Arabia? What if it should be controversial when a would-be intelligence official calls the 2008 Tibetan uprisings against China "race riots," and why didn't anyone in the Obama administration take a look at Freeman's associations and statements, realize they were potentially very controversial, then think twice?

Obama's Taliban Response Draws Lukewarm Response From Allies, Criticism From Experts

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."

Obama's Father And Great Britain

What is with this whole thing where a president allegedly establishes his foreign policy based on what happened to his dad?

Déjà vu for Germans: Obama's Taliban Proposal

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."

Clinton's Concept Of European Democracy

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.

Obama's First Major Presidential Trip Scheduled For Europe

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.

Gordon And Barack Talk About Tennis, But Not A "Global New Deal"

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.

Obama's Continued Dance With Russia

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.

Iran Options

Some senior U.S. official really is getting around, talking about what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is telling key Arab leaders about Iran. "It's doubtful that Iran would respond" to engagement, she said, according to that official.

It's all been interpreted as a sign that the U.S. is already moving away from President Obama's campaign idea to meet with Iran.

So what does that leave?

Well, for one, according to the L.A. Times, "it could help persuade U.S. allies to join it in increasing pressure on the Islamic regime," since Clinton said that Iran rebuffing overtures to Iran "would quell complaints that the United States has not exhausted diplomatic routes." Clinton said "that Iran's 'worst nightmare is an international community that is united and an American government willing to engage Iran,' according to the State official."

In particular, Russia and European allies getting on board with additional Iran sanctions they've resisted in the past would be a new step.

The L.A. Times mentioned a few more steps: efforts to solicit Iran to help stabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan, creating a little U.S.-Iran collaboration, as well as new commitments toward U.S. and international disarmament that would persuade Iran to follow that lead.

There does seem to be consensus -- unlike prior to Iraq, when the IAEA and others were skeptical -- that Iran is on the path to a nuclear weapon. Maybe that has created new pressure to move beyond engagement?

Will Gordon Brown's "Global New Deal" Ever Get Off The Ground?

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?

Bill Frist As Sudan Envoy Has Some Things Going For It

I've spilled a lot of words in this space about the degree of overlap between Presidents Obama and Bush on national security and foreign policy, and others have started to notice the same thing. But there's a fine line between doing the same thing as one's predecessor and acting in a nonpartisan spirit.

The notion to appoint former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, as special envoy to Sudan would appear to be the latter. It's only a proposal so far, from Rep. Frank Wolf, an influential member of Congress on human rights. Wolf, though, says the administration likes the idea. Some Democrats may have leftover hard feelings about Frist, but on Darfur, Frist was ahead of the curve.

Any real skepticism about Frist's appointment has more to do with institutional questions: "An effective special envoy generally requires two important features: 1) diplomatic experience 2) access to the president. It strikes me that former Senator Frist possesses neither."

But it might be offset by the signal Frist's appointment would send: America is united on Darfur, left and right.

Kudos For Senator Lugar's Call To Re-Establish International American Centers

It doesn't happen often, but sometimes someone expresses an opinion one can entirely agree with. Even more rarely this someone happens to be politician. Well, this just happened to me after reading Senator Richard Lugar's article arguing why the U.S. should reverse its long process of closing its America Centers around the world.

I witnessed the closure of all U.S. government run America Centers in Germany over the years, with the last Amerika Haus operated by the U.S. government closing in Cologne in 2007. Sure, many of them have reopened through private initiative and do a great job in fostering transatlantic understanding. But I have always felt that for an issue that is as important for the U.S. as public diplomacy (as everyone has come to understood at least after 9/11) Washington should put its money where its mouth is.

To be clear, the internet and other modern information tools as well as private sponsors are and should be a big part of public diplomacy. But can and should they replace a live forum, a marketplace of ideas where people in cities across the world can meet, talk and debate with Americans, not in a virtual chat room, but in a real reading room? I think not.

Apropos reading room: Were the American Center in Frankfurt to reopen its library I would gladly donate the hundreds of classical Americana I schlepped away in dozens of bags after the library closed. Ok, maybe not gladly, but it would give them back.

Foreign Policy + Everything

During the campaign on this blog, I spent a lot of time talking about the way foreign policy linked to lots of other issues. The economy. Global warming. Etc.

As of Obama's State of the Union speech (I know, I know, he didn't call it that), it's clear that the president sees all those issues as interrelated, too.

As Heather Hurlburt noted over at Democracy Arsenal, the blog of the National Security Network: Her final thought, after "having sat through the whole thing, is to point out how we are moving toward a worlcd (sic) where there is no 'foreign policy section' because the issues are woven seamlessly through a framework of issues affecting America, energy security, global warming, and other issues."

Amid Increasing Tensions Between Kurds And Arabs, All U.S. Troops Supposed To Leave Iraq By 2011

According to media reports, President Barack Obama will soon announce his decision to complete the American combat troop withdrawal from Iraq by August 2010 and the pullout of all U.S. forces by December 2011. If implemented, the withdrawal will take a few months longer than Obama pledged during the campaign.

But I agree with Marc Lynch that this gap is insignificant. Obama's timetable for withdrawal shows that he is serious about keeping his commitments, while at the same time adjusting them to factors and events on the ground. By most accounts, violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically, a fact that has been underscored by peaceful recent regional elections in the country, which (perhaps for that reason) went largely unnoticed by international media.

However, it's also worth pointing out, as Michael Crowley does, that the real test might come if Iraq once again descends into chaos and Obama must decide whether to bring back the American military to stabilize the country or let the Iraqis deal with it themselves.

What's more, according to recent reports, escalating tensions between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs could complicate the planned American pullout. The Prime Minister of the Kurdish regional parliament demanded only a few days ago that the U.S. iron out problems between Kurds and the central government in Baghad before pulling out its troops.

German Carnival Featuring Obama, Clinton And Uncle Sam

With the German Carnival season coming to an official end on Wednesday, here are a few highlights of Monday's traditional parades in the German Carnival capitals Cologne, Düsseldorf and Mainz. As everyone who has ever been to one of those cities during Carnival season knows, celebrating it properly and extensively is taken very seriously. In Cologne alone more than one million revellers watched Germany's biggest Carnival parade consisting of more than 11,000 participants and more than 100 decorated floats. Keeping with the focus of Across the Pond, all pictures feature Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or the U.S. in general.

- Obama bites Clinton (Düsseldorf Carnival Parade)

- Uncle Sam's crumbling empire (Cologne Carnival Parade)

- Europe on the heels of America's Obama (Düsseldorf Carnival Parade)

- Obama trying to lift up the Statue of Liberty (Mainz Carnival Parade)

All Foreign Cars For Auto Industry Task Force, But Does It Mean Anything?

In a clever bit of populist/hometown reporting, the Detroit News found that most of the members of the president's task force on the auto industry owns foreign cars. Also cleverly, the paper just put the information out there -- no analysis, no experts quoted on whether this was a good or bad thing. Just information. Only the lede hints at a viewpoint, and even then it's carefully couched -- "The vehicles owned by the Obama administration's auto team could reflect one reason why Detroit's Big Three automakers are in trouble: The list includes few new American cars."

That's where everyone else comes in.

Automobile magazine suggests maybe there's something wrong with the team driving foreign cars: "As there seems to be little familiarity with the automotive world on this task force, we hope these guys and gals have some serious business and economic savvy."

Autoblog is less convinced: "Between the flow of bailout bucks and the economic turmoil threatening to topple the Detroit 3, you'd figure the investigative efforts of the Detroit News would be better spent digging through the viability plans of Chrysler and General Motors, delving into the minutia that could make or break the domestic automobile industry. Apparently not."

Obama: "Wolf In Sheep's Clothing" Regarding War, Anti-Terror, Hawkish Rhetoric

The New York Daily News' sharp James Gordon Meek has a piece up expanding on a theme I've returned to here numerous times: That is, whether President Obama is as dovish and different from President Bush on national security as anyone perceived.

Raising points I haven't in previous posts, Meek directs readers' attention to a few items. Hillary Clinton's warnings to North Korea. The hawkish argument for getting out of Iraq to focus more on Afghanistan. That rather than waiting for enemies to "test" him, Obama is putting those enemies on their heels.

It's a typically excellent piece from the NYDN man. Read it here.

On Burma, An Early Test Of Obama Policy, And An Overlooked, Difficult Problem

With President Obama's trip to Canada hogging most of the headlines about U.S. foreign relations, it was only natural that Hillary Clinton's announcement that the United States was looking at a shift on Burma policy didn't get much play in the news.

The country's repressive regime hasn't gotten the kind of attention here that other countries with human rights challenges have, like Sudan. The U.S. has been hitting Burma's junta with economic sanctions, recently strengthened, to no avail.

Now, Clinton won't won't rule out the easing of sanctions or direct diplomacy. It's a somewhat intractable problem, Burma, and it's complicated by the fact that Congress may not be all that interested in undoing its recent strengthening of those sanctions.

The Washington Post this morning editorialized on the subject: "PRESIDENT OBAMA'S inaugural address made the world's tyrants a proposition. 'We will extend a hand,' Mr. Obama said, 'if you are willing to unclench your fist.' It now appears that Burma could be one of the first test cases for this approach."

As the Post notes, there's been no fist unclenching it can detect.

Harmony Between U.S. And Canada On Trade, Or Signs Of Trouble Ahead?

It's very interesting to behold most of the headlines about President Obama's trip to Canada. "Obama reassures Canada on open trade," the way Reuters went, was typical. Usually, the stories include an emphasis up high on the pro-trade message Obama sent: "'Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism,' Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen] Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa. 'And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it's important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries,' he said. He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to 'grow trade not contract it.'"

By contrast, I liked the "but wait" approach taken by The Guardian. Its headline instead reads, "President Barack Obama raises Nafta renegotiation during first official visit to Canada." Obama, the paper wrote, "tried to square a campaign pledge to renegotiate the agreement while at the same time avoid sparking a trade war with Canada. Obama told reporters at the press conference in Ottawa he wanted to begin talks on adding provisions to the agreement relating to workers and to the environment. 'My hope is as our advisers and staffs and economic teams work this through that there's a way of doing this that is not disruptive to the extraordinarily important trade relationship that exists between the two countries,' he said."

This is going to be a very difficult balancing act. On the campaign trail, Obama threatened to pull out of the trade agreement within six months unless it was renegotiated, and he cited a variety of concerns, many of them coming from skepticism that NAFTA had benefited the United States. It's one thing to express opposition on Thursday to "protectionism," but unless Obama is prepared to ditch his campaign pledge, his stance on renegotiating NAFTA will one day soon send exactly the opposite "signals."

Like I Was Saying, Afghanistan Proves Obama And Bush Are Totally Different On Foreign Policy

Yes. So. Yesterday I was raising questions about whether President Bush and President Obama are very different on foreign policy -- or, more correctly, I was pointing you to points raised by others.

Today, a contrasting view must be offered. The 17,000 troops Obama plans to deploy to Afghanistan is a very, very different approach toward that country. Certainly, Bush shifted some troops there several months ago. But this is a far bigger deployment, signaling a big break on one major issue from Bush on foreign policy.

By itself, the move doesn't rebut the point of the points made by Stratfor that I linked to yesterday. There is still, in many categories, "continuity" between Bush and Obama. But as of today, there is one fewer.

Overlap Between Obama, Bush On Foreign Policy, National Security

I wrote a piece for CQPolitics.com about how there are many areas of intelligence policy where President Obama is either much the same as President Bush or has left open the option of doing much the same as his predecessor: rendition, interrogation, surveillance, etc. You can read it here.

But the trend apparently extends to the entire international arena. At least, that's the implication of a Strafor piece you can read here. It argues of Vice President Biden's speech in Munich: "Most conference attendees were looking forward to a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration. What was interesting about Biden’s speech was how little change there has been in the U.S. position and how much the attendees and the media were cheered by it."

Worldwide Threat -- The Testimony

I could write a dozen blog entries on the latest annual "Worldwide Threat" briefing -- there's something in there about a great many countries, and various pieces of it have been broken out about India, Latin America and everywhere else -- or I could just point you to it in case you haven't seen it yet.

It's here.

Rice Stiffed On Darfur By Libya

The new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, had to deal with a setback on her first significant issue at the UN. Libya defeated unanimous support for a U.S. draft proposal that would have condemned the increasing civilian deaths in Sudan's Darfur region and would have implicated the Sudanese government.

"We had hoped to have a presidential statement that would have spoken with one voice in condemning the ongoing violence," Rice told the AP calling the situation in Darfur "ongoing genocide."

The episode shows that even an administration with a multilaterialist bent, and a decidely more positive view of the United Nations than the Bush administration, doesn't necessarily guarantee progress on intractable issues.

More On Travel Plans: No Trip To A Muslim Capital In The First 100 Days

Just to follow up on Michael's post, it is not just the lack of travel to Europe by Hillary Clinton that is worth a little examination. It very much appears that President Obama will not, after all, give a policy speech in a Muslim capital in his first 100 days, an idea that the campaign had mulled at one point.

Of course, he did give his first interview to a Middle East news outlet, which perhaps had a similar effect: communicating that Obama would pay close attention to and open a dialogue of sorts with the Muslim world.

And you can't exactly call it a broken campaign pledge, because it was only ever a discussion by aides that was reported by the New York Times.

There's a secondary question of whether Obama will follow through on a proposal to hold a summit with Muslim leaders.

Is Hillary Clinton Dissing China And Slighting Europe?

Is Hillary Clinton dissing China because she will kick off her Asia tour in Japan and visit China last? Or is it a sign that she is bowing to Asia's increasing power and thereby dissing Europe?

It's fun to interpret travel plans, but I think both of the assertions above read too much into the Secretary of State's itinerary. If Clinton left out China on her trip that could truly be considered a slight of the country. She isn't. And there's also another way of looking at it. By visiting China last, her talks in Beijing will probably have the most lasting news impact of the entire trip.

Example: Barack Obama's trip last year to Europe and the Middle East. He travelled to the Middle East first and also to France and Britain, but what do you most remember about the trip? His speech in Berlin, even though he really didn't spend all that much time in the German capital. What does that mean? Ultimately, content not the sequence of countries visited or time spent in capitals matters.

That's also the reason why Clinton's trip to Asia is by no means a slight for Europe. Just a few days ago Vice President Joe Biden delivered a major speech about the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda at the Munich Security Forum. And in April, President Obama himself is expected in Germany and France for the NATO summit. Therefore, it makes sense that Hillary Clinton visits Asia first. If she hadn't, Asia rightly could have felt slighted.

Shelved Missile Shield Won't Sway Iran's "Behavior"

Unlike the previous administration, the Obama administration's support for a planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe is luke warm at best. Even before the inauguration, the incoming administration said it would review the plans, a clear signal that a shift in direction on the issue was coming. Recently, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the policy shift in favor of a possible sweeping nuclear arms reduction deal and better relations with Russia. Fair enough.

But then why try to create a nexus - as Secretary Clinton did - between Iran's "behavior" and the setting up of the missile shield after having all but announced that the missile shield had been shelved? You can't signal the Russians and the Europeans that the missile shield is history, and at the same time want to use it as a stick vis-à-vis Tehran. That's simply not credible and therefore not exactly a stellar diplomatic moment.

More On The Military/State Division Of Labor

Because I've returned to the subject from time to time, this Walter Pincus piece on the question of shifting responsibilities back from the Pentagon to State is worth reading.

Noteworthy: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also thinks that foreign policy has become too "militarized."

But having folk in the military world on board so as to avoid turf wars is just step one in the transition. Even in ideal circumstances, and these are not ideal circumstances, it's going to be hard to scale back the Pentagon role in favor of State and other agencies. Funding is another part of the equation, and that won't be easy. Yet another, which I hadn't thought of until reading the piece, is the idea that Defense has a unique culture that makes it easier for it to perform overseas roles.

"Although the problem is recognized, [Adm. Michael] Mullen said, 'We're a good decade away before we've created . . . the capacity and the career paths [for] young people who will come into the Agriculture Department and say, 'Part of my life is, I expect to go to Afghanistan for a year out of every four or five.' . . .That is not what they thought their career path would include at this point.'"

Time For Europe To Help Out Obama, Says Naím

In an interview I did with Moisés Naím about Barack Obama's international agenda and Europe's stance toward it the Editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy called on Europe to start helping the U.S. instead of merely applauding the new president. You can read the interview here.

Cybersecurity Increasingly The Hot Intelligence Issue

On Monday, President Obama announced a 60-day review of federal cybersecurity programs. It was but the latest uptick in federal government concentration on protecting computer networks.

Given increasing reliance on those computer networks, it's already unsurprising that there would be an increasing focus on cybersecurity as an intelligence issue. The campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain were hacked at one point, and recently news surfaced of breaches in Congress' cyber defenses. Both nominees to Obama administration top administration posts told the Senate that cybersecurity was high on their list of issues, and the last director of National Intelligence said it was one area he wishes he was further along on before stepping down.

The future of what the United States will do on this front is ambiguous, but it's clear that the attention is only going to increase. In fiscal 2009, the top item in the intelligence budget was a cybersecurity initiative, according to the House Intelligence Committee. And Reuters reported: "Industry executives say the sector will be one of their fastest-growing markets in coming years, and analysts say it could generate over $10 billion in contracts by 2013."

Mixed Reactions To Biden Speech

Vice President Joe Biden's speech at the Munich Security Conference was generally well received. The AP thought Biden hit most of the right notes. Europeans liked what they heard. And the Russians were also warmed by Biden's remarks.

But that's not the whole story. An analyst for the BBC pointed out that Biden's speech was applauded around the globe, the proof whether it signalled a new world order was still outstanding. In a similar vain, Politico argued that Biden, despite his conciliatory tone, returned home with no concrete results.

Even more negatively were conservative commentators such as Nile Gardiner, who in his blog for the Daily Telegraph, called the speech weak-kneed and criticized the Obama administration for ceasing to use the phrase war on terror. In his blog for The Heritage Foundation, he wrote Biden gave "one of the weakest projections of U.S. leadership on foreign soil in recent memory." The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol called it vague and underwhelming.

While the wish to reap instant results after a speech that was intended to break with the rhetoric and policy of the Bush administration is understandable, it is unrealistic. Just because of Biden's speech, Russia will not immediately reverse its stance on Iran, Georgia or U.S. missile defense. And neither will Germany all of sudden commit to sending more troops to Afghanistan. But without such a speech, offering a new partnership, there wouldn't be even an impetus for any of those steps to take place. Now the ball has been passed back to America's partners and adversaries.

As for the criticism that Biden's speech was one of the weakest projections of U.S. Leadership, I am not sure that, at a time when America's economy and global image is lying in tatters and after eight years in which power projection appeared to many to be Washington's main political tool, the projection of U.S. leadership on foreign soil is what would be deemed very helpful right now.

Munich's Security Conference Kicks Off With High-Profile Line Up

For all foreign policy and international affairs buffs, the plans for this weekend are clear. Check out what's happening at Munich's Security Conference. The event is for the first time being headed by Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's former ambassador to Washington. There should not be any shortage of topics and there certainly is not shortage of high-ranking politicans.

Just have a look at the opening night line up here.

Obviously one of the highlights of the trip will be the outline of President Barack Obama's foreign policy plans by Vice President Joe Biden on his first trip abroad after taking office.

You can watch the live stream of the conference here.

Cheney Goes A Little Off Message On Terror War-Rights Debate

Ex-vice president Dick Cheney's interview this week has been discussed nearly to death, but there's a point I haven't seen raised about this quote:

"When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry."

Obviously, Miranda rights don't enter into this, so Cheney is talking generally here about rights vs. security. But Republicans always say that's a false choice, and that the controversial programs of the Bush administration both protected rights and ensured security. So is Cheney now saying that security trumps rights?

It's possible he's resorting to administration legal arguments that terrorists fundamentally don't have rights, and not saying you have to pick between security and the rights of citizens. But it's ambiguous enough that it made me wonder if, outside the message-massaging Bush White House, whether Cheney honestly has always thought you have to sacrifice one to get the other. (That's an argument anyone is welcome to have, but it's a different argument altogether.)

That's the way Obama administration CIA pick Leon Panetta took it, anyway, at the confirmation hearing I attended today: "I was disappointed by those comments, because the implication is that somehow this country is more vulnerable to attack because the president of the United States wants to abide by the law and the Constitution. I think we’re a stronger nation when we abide by the law and the Constitution."

Wikipedia's Wales On Knol, Obama And Jimmy Carter

In an interview I did with Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder talks about Google's Knol, why Wikipedia is so big in Germany and why he wouldn't want to trade with the founders of Facebook and Google.

And Wales also talks about his recent call from the Obama transition team and why he likes Jimmy Carter.

You can read the interview here.

Judd Gregg Gives The Obama Administration Its Biggest Advocate Of Free Trade

Judd Gregg's selection for Commerce secretary closes the loop on a subject I've written about in this space a couple times. The Obama administration has filled some key trade-related positions with people who are on all sides of the trade debate, and I'd wondered whether the president would replace the departed pro-"free trader" Bill Richardson with someone who's more in the "fair trade" camp.

Nope. Obama could hardly have picked a more pro-free trade Commerce secretary. In the past 15 years or so, Gregg has voted against only one major free trade deal. You can check out his entire record here.

Linkedin's founder impressed with Obama's start

I did an interview with Reid Hoffman, founder and CEO of Linkedin at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Here's what he had to say about President Barack Obama's first days in office:

"I think he has been very good at being focused. That's extraordinarily important. From what I can see and I don't have inside information, but I can see him focusing on two things.

One is stimulus package and fixing the economy. And he is soliciting ideas very broadly about how to do that well, which is very good, because it's open to a variety of new ideas. And the second one is the U.S. reputation internationally and communicating in the most tangible, possible way: We are a member of the world order, not ignoring it, not running roughshot over it.

So I think those are the exact right things to focus on. You have to get to a bunch of other ones later, but those are the right two things to start focusing on."

Obama-Iran Talks Already Happened (Maybe)

We link, you decide.

AFP: "US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP."

Mere Rhetoric: "Any meetings that happened between November and the inauguration - that was merely Obama circumventing and potentially undermining a sitting Commander In Chief."

The Cable: "'All the reports that say ‘Obama talks secretly with Iran' are wrong,' Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, the secretary general of Pugwash and the key mover behind the dialogue told The Cable Monday. 'These were not official negotiations. First of all, the dates of all our meetings were in 2008,' when the Bush administration was still in power."

"Buy American" Debate Hits The Stimulus

A "Buy American" provision in the stimulus has provoked a heated debate inside and outside Congress, with even the Obama administration taking two seemingly different stances.

ABC News has the best take on the domestic dispute. The International Herald Tribune has the best take on the international backlash.

It's still early, but with fire coming from a few different directions over this bill, enough opposition to the provision could force its removal, lest it threaten to help sink the overall legislation. There is some divide over this issue domestically, and many past Buy American feuds have ended in a standstill -- although that was in a different economic environment.

Progressives Voice Complaints About Obama Foreign Policy Picks

Yes, it's a trend, at least of perception. No more question marks, like the one that accompanies a recent post. There is at least a significant segment of the left that views the Obama foreign policy team as hawkish, whether it is or not.

That, in fact, is the very premise of this AlterNet piece. The author, Stephen Zunes, views essentially every Obama pick on foreign policy as highly interested in military intervention, and explains why. One way of looking at it, which even Zunes acknowledges, is that Obama establishes his non-ideological approach to things by picking people who lean right (or lean more right than some of the left would like).

Why does this matter, beyond the mere labels of things? Because if enough progressives mount complaints like this, it could have an impact on the shaping of policy. It is at least arguable that pressure from progressives already derailed the prospective nomination of John Brennan as director of the CIA.

And Zunes spells out the strategy: "Another reason that an Obama administration will not likely be as far to the right as these appointments may imply is that his electoral base – energized by popular opposition to the Iraq War – is perhaps the most progressive in history when it comes to foreign policy. It is also the most engaged and organized base the party has ever seen. Once the relief of Bush's departure and the glow of Obama's inauguration has worn off, he will have to face the millions of people responsible for his election who will expect him to keep his word regarding 'change you can believe in'... As a result, what may be most important will not be the people that Obama appoints, but the choices we give them."

Indians Step Up Their Lobbying (And Pakistanis, Too)

Recent weeks have brought an influx in reporting about the lobbying efforts of Indians, all of which is worth checking out.

The Cable kicked things off with its report on the appointment of Richard Holbrooke to a South Asia envoy post. "But the omission of India from his title, and from [Hillary] Clinton's official remarks introducing the new diplomatic push in the region was no accident -- not to mention a sharp departure from Obama's own previously stated approach of engaging India, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan, in a regional dialogue. Multiple sources told The Cable that India vigorously -- and successfully -- lobbied the Obama transition team to make sure that neither India nor Kashmir was included in Holbrooke's official brief." They followed up on that later here.

Time magazine took a step back and examined the issue as a whole here, and the idea is that India doesn't want the U.S. butting in to Kashmir, and views the limited Holbrooke portfolio as a success in Washington. But the Obama team is saying lobbying had nothing to do with it; they'd always intended to leave India out of his portfolio, but that doesn't mean the administration won't be active on Kashmir.

Meanwhile, Indian-American groups have been getting involved, too, according to my CQ colleague Caitlin Webber, with a coalition of groups hitting the Hill this week to "urge lawmakers to make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on cooperation with investigations of November’s terrorist attack in Mumbai." And a group of Pakistani-Americans have been lobbying against such an idea.

Why's this all happening all at once? Well, what happened in Mumbai has ramifications for the U.S. -- on its domestic counterterrorism policies, on its agenda hunting terrorists on the Afghanistan border, and so forth.

But on a larger level less driven by a single recent news event, one of the people affiliated with the Pakistani-American lobbying effort said: “I think we are all going through a moment of transition. The U.S. is going through its own moment of transition, trying to find its voice, its soul, its destiny, and so is Pakistan and so is India.”

"Climate Change Will Be Increasingly Central To Our Foreign Policy"

That's what new Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry said Wednesday at a hearing where his remarks did not go entirely unnoticed but were overshadowed by the testimony of Al Gore. But it may have deserved to be the headline (and obviously it's what I went with). I already wrote just yesterday that energy/climate change will be one of the top three foreign policy issues of the year, at least on the congressional agenda.

It was a matter of both words and deeds. Wrote Time: "The fact that Kerry chose to make global warming the subject of his first hearing as chairman of the committee signals that in President Barack Obama's Washington at least, Gore's views on the severity of climate change and the need for action are gaining clout — and not just for environmental reasons."

The reason is not immediately obvious to anyone who hasn't thought about it much. But Kerry himself explained: "We are here today for the same reason our top military leaders and intelligence officials have been sounding the alarms. They describe climate change as a threat multiplier and they are warning that the cost of ignoring this issue will be more famine, more drought, more widespread pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity and human displacement on a massive scale."

The Congressional Security And Foreign Policy Agenda

I gave a speech today, as a CQ reporter, on the security agenda for the new Congress. It was an interesting exercise, to step back and look at it as a whole, and to look forward.

What I realized was that there's a lot more there than I expected for a Democratic Congress that will almost surely end up largely supporting a new Democratic president. I don't think there will be the kind of acquiescence to any and all executive branch proposals that marked the immediate post-9/11 environment, nor the kind of outright feuding on fundamental differences over the "how" of battling terrorism that has marked the last couple years. But I do expect there to be border skirmishes over the specifics.

Here's the list as I saw it, assembled with the assistance of some of my colleagues. Space will keep me from elaborating much, but these are topics I'll surely return to in this space repeatedly.

FOREIGN POLICY
--Nuclear proliferation (START treaty, test ban treaty, the UAE)
--Energy (climate change, energy demand)
--"Smart" power (reviving diplomacy, shifting roles from Pentagon to State)

DEFENSE
--Budget (debate over cuts at some point, likely for weapons makers, but supplementals until then)
--Iraq and Afghanistan (reviewing agreements with the Iraqi government, shifting the focus to Afghanistan)
--Veterans (increased care for Iraq ilnesses and lower-priority veterans, DOD/VA health care infrastructure)

INTELLIGENCE
--Interrogation (Guantanamo closure, whether to codify interrogation tactics, examination of past practices)
--Surveillance (court case outcomes, Patriot Act reauthorization)
--Authorization bill (cybersecurity, shape of the intelligence community)

HOMELAND SECURITY
--Chemical plant security (legislation/regulation expiring)
--FEMA as part of the Department of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano non-committal)
--Department oversight (Authorization bill, attention to border security, interoperatbility, surface transportation)

Guantanamo Bay: The Difference Between Bush And The World Vs. Obama And The World

The European Union tiptoe toward being willing to accept some Guantanamo detainees points to one major difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration: Bush evoked hostility from many traditional U.S. allies, while Obama has something of a clean slate, thanks to not having offended anyone yet and his generally more welcoming attitude toward international cooperation.

Now, some of the groundwork toward countries being willing to accept Gitmo detainees may have indeed been put in place by Bush's team. But even then, the sense was that buddying up to the new administration was the major goal, not doing favors for the outgoing team.

There is no huge cry for Gitmo detainees to be returned to the United States. The stray Democratic congressman says he'd be fine with them being in his district, but several lawmakers, albeit Republicans, have made a big fuss about the idea.

Karl Rove predicts that Gitmo will not be closed in a year. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of whether Obama can deliver on his plan. But if the international community gets on board, it will absolutely be significantly easier.

Closing Guantanamo Is Step In The Right Direction, Says Malcom Gladwell

I had the chance to interview Malcolm Gladwell about his new book "Outliers" today. But obviously I had to ask him about the effect President Barack Obama would have on America's standing abroad. "It can only go up," Gladwell who described himself as a centrist Democrat, answered, pointing out that while it is very early to make a call on that, the decision to close Guantanamo was an important step in the right direction.

After the full interview goes online at DW-WORLD.DE, I'll link to it from here.

Obama, Clinton Move To Take Some Diplomacy Responsibilities Back From The Pentagon

This AP analysis article has some interesting insights about the new Obama/Clinton foreign policy, but I was most taken by one section.

"[Clinton} intends to make more use of special diplomatic envoys, in part to move the U.S. away from its recent practice of increasing the power of military commanders to interact with foreign leaders. 'I believe that special envoys, particularly (as compared to) military commands, have a lot to recommend in order to make sure that we've got the civilian presence well represented,' she told senators."

It's not just that Obama and Clinton prefer diplomacy. The Pentagon under Bush increasingly took on roles that were once the exclusive province of the military. And in many ways, they still are doing those things. One wonders what Robert Gates thinks of Clinton's plans, not that conflict between Defense and State would be anything new.

Steinmeier's Agenda For The Day: Clinton And Guantanamo

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had a busy day today and was involved in at least two major international news stories. First, he talked to his new American counterpart Hillary Clinton to offer his congratulations. Clinton and Steinmeier agreed to meet soon.

And second, according to German tabloid bild.de, Steinmeier and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble agreed to meet in the next few days to iron out their publicly voiced dispute about whether Germany should consider taking inmates from Guantanamo. While Steinmeier said Germany should consider such a move, Interior Minister Schaeuble said he could not see why EU countries should grant sanctuary to people who are too dangerous for the U.S.

Left And Right See What They Want In The Foreign Policy Section Of Obama's Inaugural Speech

Sticking with reaction to Tuesday's inaugural speech, some interesting ideological types have dissected the foreign policy remarks of President Obama and their relative liberal or conservative qualities.

For the most part, both this Heritage piece and this U.S. News piece get it right. For instance, the Heritage author said that by referring to a "war" on a terror network, Obama seconded Bush (although Obama used "network" as opposed to "terrorism" itself, a slight but important distinction that nonetheless leaves the assessment basically accurate); by addressing foreign leaders to whom the United States will "extend a hand" to those who "unclench your fist," Obama was putting forward an opposite course.

At the same time, there was some hopefulness in the Heritage piece that Obama wouldn't turn too far away from Bush: "...how far world events will allow the Obama foreign policy to diverge from that of the Bush years remains to be seen."

The U.S. News author was correct to take issue with conservatives who somehow saw something new in Obama's desire to "defeat" terrorists, as though Democrats hadn't wanted to do so before: "The national Democrats who don't want to defeat our terrorist enemies only exist in the fevered mirror universe of GOP talking points."

Inauguration Day Foreign Policy Roundup

David Nather tackles President Obama's message to the world.

Caitlin Webber tackles how world leaders reacted to the inauguration.

BBC Monitoring tackles world media reaction.

Obama To Visit Berlin In April, Says German Magazine

Recently I wrote about the new president's travel plans and the race between European leaders to be the first to visit Barack Obama in the White House. While there is still no news on the latter, German magazine Focus reports that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Berlin in April. According to the report, Obama's staff is preparing a trip to the German capital after participating in a NATO summit on April 3-4 in Baden-Baden and Strasbourg. With his trip to Berlin, Barack Obama intends to thank Berliners for their support during his big speech there last year. No word whether President Obama will be allowed to do what candidate Obama was not: Give a speech at Brandenburg Gate.

Obama Clearly Will Hit Foreign Policy On Day One, But His Gaza Agenda Is Foggier

Multiple news reports make abundantly clear that as soon as President-elect Obama officially becomes president, he will hit foreign policy hard, tackling issues such as the Iraq War and Guantanamo.

Where the reports differ is on what Obama will do on the conflict in Gaza, short of naming a Middle East envoy, which has been reported most everywhere.

The Post: "Incoming officials were still debating yesterday how involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis should proceed during the first week. With a fragile Gaza cease-fire in place, the new administration plans to tread gingerly, working behind the scenes while allowing Egyptian and European initiatives to play out before taking a highly visible role."

The Hill: "After weeks of delivering speeches on the nation’s economic crisis, Obama is scheduled to meet with the Joints Chiefs of Staff and other high-ranking military officers on Wednesday and has promised to 'have plenty to say' about the conflict in Gaza after he is sworn in."

I suspect CNN's account reflects the differing sources some of the publications might have: "The Obama aides also revealed the Mideast crisis has shot to the top of the immediate agenda. The aides said Obama has been pushing behind the scenes for quick, decisive action, overriding the advice of some aides who believe getting active instantly may raise unrealistic expectations for Mideast peace."

Inauguration Party Time In Germany, Europe And Around The Globe

Finally, transition time will officially come to end on Tuesday with Barack Obama's inauguration. It's about time. Putting the -elect every time after President for almost three months is really long enough. I think many journalists share this feeling.

So before all the hard work begins for soon-to-be President Obama, it's time to party. If you are in Washington, DC on Inauguration Day, you probably cannot escape some sort of party or another. Still not sure where to go to though? Then just click here for a whole slew of party offerings in the U.S. capital.

In Germany, probably one of largest inauguration party's outside the U.S. will kick off at Club Goya in Berlin at 4 p.m. The event is hosted by Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad. Around 1500 guests are expected, including staff from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. While there are lots of other partys in most major German cities, Munich will be the first German city to stage an Inaugural Ball hosted jointly by Democrats and Republicans abroad. It happens at the Arabella Sheraton starting at 4 p.m. For tickets (75 Euro), send a mail to munichinauguralball2009@gmail.com.

Elsewhere in Europe, Austrians are celebrating Obama's inauguration at the Vienna Marriott, while Luxembourg's inauguration fest will take place at the hotel Sofitel. For parties in other cities in Europe and around the globe, check out the homepage of Democrats Abroad and select a country.

Have fun!

Trend?: Intervention-Oriented Picks For Obama Team

It's probably too early to call it a trend, but when one blogger on the left notices it and a magazine on the right notices it, it's at least interesting.

DanK at TPM notes a reported Obama hire on Russia who has an intervention-oriented mindset.

The American Conservative notes the same hire, plus another potential pick at the State Department, as being part of the same intervention-oriented strain.

Something to consider.

The Wisdom of Obama: Books By And About The President-Elect Are A Hit In China

Not only in the U.S. are President-elect Barack Obama's books bestsellers. As German daily Die Welt reports, Chinese readers apparently just can't get enough of Obama and his writings. A collection of Obama aphorisms is a huge success in Beijing's bookstore Sanlian, only to be topped by John Talbott's "Obamanomics". According to Die Welt, the President-elect's "The Audacity of Hope" sold more than 100,000 copies. There are more than 20 Obama biographies – most of them unauthorized – on the market as well. For a comparison: Five biographies deal with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, three with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Foreign Policy Promises Of Obama

A surprising fact: In a 2008 presidential campaign where foreign policy by all appearances took a backseat to the economy, President-elect Obama made more campaign promises on foreign policy than any other subject.

That's according to Politifact, which compiled all of his promises (510 in all) and segregated them by category (87 on foreign policy). The plan is to follow all of his promises and see which one he fulfills.

You can check out all the foreign policy pledges here, and go ahead and expect "no action" on some of them from now until 2012 or even 2016 -- Vice President-elect Biden said during the campaign that the economic crisis meant that some of the pledges to vastly increase foreign aid probably would go down the drain.

Global Poll Finds Decline of America's Image And High Hopes For Obama

A new global poll compiled by Austrian research company Triconsult right before the U.S. election (October/November 2008) provides some interesting data. It is essentially another confirmation of America's declined global image and the high hopes for President-elect Barack Obama. Here's a quick snapshot:

-Western Europeans (Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Finland) think that the U.S. will pay more attention to human rights under President Barack Obama and that America's image abroad will improve.

-Western Europeans believe Americans are more conservative and traditional than Europeans.

-In every country polled, a majority of people think poverty in the U.S. will tend to decline under Obama rather than increase. Americans also are of that opinion, but to a lesser extent than all the other countries.

-In every country but Russia people are convinced that environmental issues in the U.S. will improve under President Obama.

-Every country has higher hopes than the U.S. that the chances for world peace will improve under Obama. However, even in the U.S., more people agree rather than disagree with that view.

-A large majority (90 percent) of Western Europeans (75 percent of Americans) think that tensions between Muslims and Christians will remain the same or decrease.

-Three out of ten Americans think that the threat of terrorism will increase. Only one out of ten Western Europeans is of that opinion.

-Only in Turkey and Georgia do more people believe that America's influence in the world has increased. All other countries see the opposite.

You can get all the details and figures, as well as a lot more fascinating polling factoids here (in German).

If There Had Been Another Attack, Would Now-Controversial Interrogation Tactics Still Be Controversial?

There's a very deep pool of reporting right now that is looking back at the Bush administration's foreign policy and national security legacy, but I want to drill a little deeper on one specific issue: interrogation and detention policy.

Journalist and author Bob Woodward said the following in a recent roundtable: "If there had been other attacks, large attacks, many attacks, quite frankly -- and this doesn't speak well to the country -- probably these things wouldn't have been an issue, people would have accepted it and the dark side would have been okay."

Woodward's statements came on the same day he reported that a top Bush administration official said a terror case had to be thrown out because a suspect was tortured. And I think that just hints at why Woodward's prediction is somewhat false.

There are a great many reasons that "the dark side" may have ran afoul of the general populace even if there were additional terror attacks.

--It obviously can complicate terror prosecutions, making it harder to jail people who are guilty, and surely a segment of the electorate might have come to question it on those grounds.
--There is a considerable body of study questioning whether some of the tactics the Bush administration has acknowledged using produce good intelligence, since people enduring harsh treatment have been known to lie simply to escape said harsh treatment. Trained interrogators, psychologists and anyone with a pragmatic streak would have eventually spoken out about this no matter the number of attacks, I imagine.
--There would always have been a segment of the population that would have moral objections to the U.S. government embracing "the dark side."
--And, as a foreign policy "realist" argued Tuesday, waterboarding/torture has had, and would continually have had even had their been additional attacks, ramifications for the United States internationally; there is a plausible argument that the revelations of the United States' harsh treatment pushed more people toward becoming terrorists. If the tactics used to fight terrorists create new terrorists, surely at least a segment of the population would have wondered whether the tactics were effective. And that doesn't even factor in to the discussion any of the fallout all of this has led to for the United States' allies, whose help would still hypothetically be handy for fighting terrorists.

I'm not personally arguing for or against any specific interrogation/detention regime. I'm only arguing with the premise of Woodward's statement. I'm guessing that if there had been more terror attacks, it might have taken longer for the Bush administration's methods in the "war on terror" to have come under the kind of scrutiny they're under now. But they would have eventually.

Finland Open To Helping Obama Out On Guantanamo

In a good post over at the New Atlanticist, James Joyner outlines and analyses President-elect Barack Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo prison and the difficulties it presents. One of them is, as the AP reports, judging the mixed group of more than 200 inmates currently detained at Guantanamo. Another difficult step is to find countries willing to take the prisoners. Britain, who has been asked by the U.S. to take prisoners, said it was only inclined to do so if joined by other European nations. The UN has also called upon countries to accept prisoners. Not surprisingly, takers are not exactly lining up.

But in an interesting twist, Finland, which has no nationals detained in Guantanamo, has offered to take up to sixty inmates.

For a list (published in 2006) of prisoners at Guantanamo and their countries of origin click here.

Obama, Congress May Clash Over Merger Of Homeland Security Council With National Security Council

President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats have been a bit out of sync on intelligence issues. First he angered some congressional liberals who opposed a candidate for the CIA director's job, John Brennan, because they feared his views on interrogation and surveillance policies were too closely in line with the Bush administration's. Then, the candidate he did pick, Leon Panetta, drew some fire from a couple senior Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who were angry they hadn't been informed and had concerns about his thin intelligence resume. Those concerns now appear to have died down.

The next intelligence-related issue on which Congress and Obama may be out of sync is whether to merge the White House Homeland Security Council into the National Security Council. On the surface, it sounds like an easy decision -- why would you need a separate homeland security council when it's as much of a component of national security as anything else that falls under the NSC's purview? But the leaders of the House and Senate committees with oversight of homeland security are skeptical about the idea, because they fear it could lead to homeland security getting thrown onto the backburner. One's a Democrat and the other's an independent, and both say they're "open" to the merger, with some caveats. The top Republican on the Senate panel has similar concerns. Read more in my CQ story here (although you won't find the House chairman's point of view in that story, expressed to me but not published in the piece).

Which European Leader Will Win The Race To The First Meeting In The White House?

As Tim wrote, Barack Obama, in keeping with tradition, chose neighboring Canada as his first country to visit. On that note, it will be interesting to see who will be the first European leader to visit the new President in the White House, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown being the obvious favorites.

After Obama's big fanfare trip to Berlin last year didn't go down well with the French and the British, let's see which European country is picked to receive the first presidential visit. According to media reports, Poland is not faring too badly, having already secured a visit by President Obama in June. For an interesting perspective on how President George W. Bush prioritized his foreign trips click here.

Obama's First Foreign Trip: Canada

President-elect Barack Obama is going the opposite route of President Bush right away on one early foreign policy decision: A visit to Canada.

Bush, you see, went to Mexico as his first foreign policy trip, breaking a rather long tradition of new presidents visiting Canada first, one that Obama plans to restore, according to both the Obama team and Canadian officials.

As you might expect, they're happy about this in Canada, where it's something of a symbolic victory about the importance of their country. But that doesn't mean Obama won't have some contentious business to attend to once there.

Per the Vancouver Sun: "The meeting between [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper and Obama is certain to focus heavily on several key topics — the war in Afghanistan, climate change and the impact the global recession is having on the North American auto industry and Canada-U.S. bilateral trade."

Predictions For China-U.S. Relations Under Obama

How will China-U.S. relations fare under President Barack Obama is a topic many commentators have been tackling recently, going beyond the latest news that U.S. debt is becoming less appealing to China. Howard LaFranchi deems it likely that Obama may pursue a tougher stance on China than the Bush administration because of an increased focus on human rights and statements criticizing Beijing's monetary policy. That puts Chinese officials in a tight spot. While they felt comfortable with the outgoing Republican administration, the Chinese people are rather fond of Barack Obama.

China expert David Shambough, in an article in the International Herald Tribune, presents a brief history of Sino-American relations calling them a marriage of convenience. In his opinion, relations between both countries are currently the best since the Tiananmen crackdown of 1989.

Focusing on the most critical issue between the U.S. and China - Taiwan -, Bonnie Glaser offers eight policy objectives that she thinks are likely to be pursued by the Obama administration. Among the points mentioned are a possible change of rhetoric, not substance of Washington's "one China" policy and firm support for a larger Taiwanese role in international organizations.

In an editorial for Forbes, Gordon Chang presents his rather gloomy outlook on China for 2009. He argues that the ability of China's leadership to govern the country effectively is starting to erode, which leaves Chinese officials little margin of error. According to Chang, with three historic anniversaries coming up, 2009 will be a crucial year for China.

Obama Style: German Social Democrats Make Internet The Heart Of Their Election Campaign

Yesterday I wrote about how Rotterdam's new mayor has sparked comparisons with President-elect Barack Obama. Today, in another sign how the former Democratic Senator from Illinois and his campaign resonate with Europeans, the German Social Democrats (SPD), the country's oldest major party, officially launched their new and improved homepage in preparation for Germany's general election this fall. And who do you think inspired the SPD in their efforts? Yep, that's right, Barack Obama.

"The online campaign will become the heart of our general election campaign," Kajo Wasserhövel, in charge of the Social Democratic election campaign said. Taking a page out of Obama's hugely successful online campaign, the SPD has decluttered its old internet site, which looked like old newspaper articles that were cut and pasted online, as Germany's tageszeitung mocked.

No more. The new site comes with lots of large pictures, buttons for online donations and links to social networking sites. And it's not just the new internet site that smacks of Obamamania. Want to know how the party's Germanized stab at "Yes we can" sounds? "Anpacken. Für unser Land" (Let's tackle things. For our country).

According to campaign manager Wasserhövel, the Social Democratic homepage is only the start. The next relaunch is just a matter of time. German Foreign Minister and Social Democratic candidate for Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier's personal internet site is scheduled to get a makeover soon too.

To compare, check out the SPD's new homepage here and an old version from last January here. You can find Frank-Walter Steinmeier's personal internet site here.

And here's the original: You can find Barack Obama's internet site here and the Democratic Party's homepage here.

"One President At A Time" On Foreign Front, But Not On Economic Stimulus

On Gaza and other foreign matters, President-elect Barack Obama's team has repeatedly refused to weigh in on the principle that there is only "one president at a time." But on the economic front, Obama has stepped over that line.

It's hard to reconcile the two, just using one's brain. The closest Obama has come to explaining the difference is to say on Monday, per Politico, “I will continue to insist that, when it comes to foreign affairs, it is particularly important to emphasize that there is one president at a time... There are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can't have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake.”

I suppose it's defensible, then, if President Bush isn't proposing his own economic plan, therefore meaning there isn't any interference in negotiations. Because is there really any reason there should be just one face representing the executive branch abroad as opposed to with Congress?

Much Ado About Nothing In Kashmir Over Obama's "First Big Foreign Policy Mistake"

Were you aware that Barack Obama had made his "first big foreign policy mistake?" And that it was a statement about Kashmir? The press in India and Pakistan is going bonkers about it, but it's not getting much ink in the United States.

Perhaps that's because the statement was made months ago, on the campaign trail -- which would make it difficult to qualify as Obama's "first big foreign policy mistake," since it was made before he was even elected, let alone inaugurated. Obviously, Obama's stance on Kashmir has its detractors, as you might have read back in November, when the remarks were first published. But if this warrants big headlines, now, in India and Pakistan, clearly there's a great hunger for any shred of U.S.-related news in that region of the world, because this one's a big reach.

Nonetheless, if you want to get caught up on this tempest in a teapot, you can read the Washington Times piece that started it all here. (And by the way, if the author of the piece was somehow alleging this was the "first big foreign policy mistake" Obama has ever made, in his whole life, or as a candidate for president, I'm sure Obama's critics and even his allies could find bigger so-called "mistake[s].")

Rotterdam Says Yes We Can Too

Amid all the major doom and gloom stories about the global economic crisis, the war in Gaza and Russia's power play with its gas exports, an important piece of good news was barely noticed by the international press. For the first time a major European city is being governed by a muslim immigrant. Ahmed Aboutaleb, Morrocan-born, was sworn in on Monday as mayor of the Netherland's second largest city Rotterdam.

Aboutaleb, who has been dubbed "Obama from the Maas" by Dutch media, is a Social Democrat who previously served as Secretary of State for Social Affairs in the Dutch government. The new mayor of Rotterdam was 14 years old when he immigrated to the Netherlands from Morroco. His job won't be easy: Rotterdam has the largest immigrant population among all Dutch cities and was the base of Pim Fortuyn, the right wing politician who was killed in 2002.

With Panetta To Head The CIA, Who Will Run The NSA?

With his decision to nominate Leon Panetta to head the CIA, President-elect Barack Obama has scored a huge surprise. While some politicians working on intelligence matters scratch their heads over the choice, other voices argue that intelligence experience may not necessarily be the most important credential for the job these days. And as former CIA director John Deutch told The Caucus, some of the most successful heads (George Bush senior being one of them) of the CIA possessed little or no intelligence experience.

By putting Leon Panetta in charge of the CIA, I think Barack Obama wants to achieve three things: He wants someone at the helm he can trust absolutely; he wants that person to put an end to interrogation/torture practices established unter the Bush administration; and he wants to symbolize a break from the past publicly. With Leon Panetta, there is a good chance he can fulfill all three tasks.

While the CIA, with its focus on human intelligence, is certainly the most widely known spy agency, the NSA with its focus on signals intelligence is arguably the more important one. Considering the recent warrantless surveillance scandal, it might be even more interesting to find out who Barack Obama picks to head the NSA.

A Foreign Policy Treasure Trove

From the Department of Stupidly Promoting Others comes this recommendation that you check out all the major, major new features over at Foreign Policy magazine's website, which has added like a gazillion foreign policy blogs, all of which show promise.

But if you're anything like me, you won't stop reading the (hopefully) good work we do here at Across the Pond, because this is an opportunity to supplement, not replace, with yet more good foreign policy analysis.

They hit foreign policy from every angle at each of the new blogs, and I won't link to every single one of them today; there are nine in all, and I recommend exploring. But I can tell you I'm personally looking forward to regularly visiting The Cable, written by the excellent foreign policy/national security writer Laura Rozen; The Best Defense, penned by Tom Ricks, the Washington Post defense writer who does great work; and Madam Secretary, which promises to "obsessive" about Hillary Clinton. There are some other heavyweights that just got hired -- go check it out.

And if this doesn't sound enough like a press release, here's the actual press release.

Richardson's Step Down Raises Questions About Replacement's View On Trade

On Sunday, Bill Richardson withdrew as President-elect Obama's choice to head up the Commerce Department, removing a voice from his cabinet who represents a more pro-free trade position.

Considering that Obama's pick for U.S. trade representative, Rep. Xavier Becerra, is seen as more skeptical of free trade (or, rather, more in favor of fair trade -- the dispute over wording here makes writing about this difficult), Richardson's departure leaves Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's pick for White House chief of staff, as the biggest counterbalance representing that stance. One wonders if Obama's team will replace Richardson with someone who reflects Richardson's point of view on trade.

Foreign Policy Predictions For 2009

Instead of looking back and writing a year-in-review kind of post as many others have done, I prefer to offer readers a few foreign policy-related predictions for 2009 from across the web.

Kathleen McFarland at The Fox Forum predicts:

- A resurgent Russia will lead Ukraine to cancel its plans for membership in the European Union and fall back under the Russian sphere of influence. Europe will do nothing about it.

- China will see social unrest by the end of the year. The Chinese government will quell the unrest and restore order.

Charlie Edwards at Global Dashboard predicts:

- Britain will increase its troops in Afghanistan by spring. Germany, France and Italy will do so as well in October after a deal with the Obama administration.

- The U.S. or France will fight a brief, but intense, war in Somalia.

- Benjamin Netanyahu will win elections in Israel in February.

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be voted out in elections in Iran in June.

- Prime Minister Recip Tayyin Erdogan will end Turkey's bid to join the EU and turn east instead.

- Mexico, the world's leading narco state, will descend into total chaos and destabilize the region.

Janet Daley at the Daily Telegraph predicts:

- No dramatic foreign policy shift vis-a-vis Russia, the Middle East and Islamist terrorism under President Barack Obama.

- No significant international agreement for global financial regulation will be reached.

Michael Goodwin at the New York Daily News predicts:

- Stories about friction between President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will surface within six months.

- Pakistan or Iran, not Gaza, will be involved in a serious international crisis.

Agree or disagree? What are your predictions for 2009?

Confirmation Hearing Watch

If you're interested in following the Senate's march of nominees for hearings and confirmations, two locations of note:

1. This New York Times piece that lays out the current schedule.
2. This CQPolitics.com blog that posts new hearing dates as they happen.

Few of the nominees of interest to this blog -- i.e., those with foreign relations roles -- or much of any of the nominees, in fact, are expected to encounter any real resistance from Democrats who control Congress.

But it's an opportunity to stop relying on speculation and get from the horse's mouth the incoming administration's views on Afghanistan and the like. Per the times: "The confirmation calendar, at this juncture, promises to be manna for policy wonks as everyone gets a glimpse of the incoming administration’s plans and its collective (or not so) thinking."

Obama Rings In New Year In Hawaii, Merkel, Sarkozy And Berlusconi Favor Switzerland

While Barack Obama will round out his last pre-presidential Hawaii vacation with the traditional New Year fireworks, several European leaders will ring in the New Year in Switzerland. According to Swiss media reports, French President Nicholas Sarkozy has booked a place in Crans-Montana. Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are expected to vacation either in Klosters near Davos or in St. Moritz, depending on which media source you trust. Wherever they stay, there is plenty of snow to go around, which is after all one of the reasons why people go there.

Wherever you are celebrating 2009, Happy New Year to you.

An Answer To The Guantanamo Bay Dilemma?

This doesn't appear to have gotten much attention in either the news or blogging world, coming as it did on Christmas day and making its way ashore over the weekend:

From The Australian -- "The US State Department confirmed that, over the past 12 months, it had cabled more than 100 countries seeking help to clear out Guantanamo Bay. The incoming administration of Barack Obama is expecting help with resettling more than 250 detainees still at Guantanamo Bay, some still considered dangerous but many regarded as not being a threat."

From Bloomberg -- "Australia may accept detainees from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, subject to legal criteria and their individual cases... Australia joined Germany and Portugal in voicing a willingness to take some Guantanamo detainees."

The Australian examined some of the pros and cons of it from Australia's point of view -- pro: curry favor with Washington at a crucial turning point; con: bringing even alleged terrorists to one's country can't be that popular -- but I've not seen much else. Are there downsides for the U.S., though? (h/t Think Progress)

Should Obama Say Or Do Something About Gaza?

With no sign of the violence in Gaza letting up, the pressure on President-elect Barack Obama to publicly take up the issue is growing. While Obama is in, what Tim aptly described, a holding pattern on Gaza, some critics from the left demand that he should become engaged now for Middle East Peace and speak out about the Gaza crisis. Meanwhile critics from the right argue that Obama is doing exactly what President George W. Bush has been doing and got hammered by the press – taking lengthy vacations.

I think both criticisms – from the left and from the right –are off the mark. Let's start with the easy one: There is one big difference between Obama's vacation in Hawaii and President Bush's: The latter one was in office when he was on his way to set a vacation record. Obama is not yet President. Let's see how long his vacations will last once he resides in the White House. And just for the record again: As a long vacationing European, I think even presidents deserve long vacations once in a while.

What about the demand then that "Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza"?

First, it may sound like a cop-out when Obama's team insist over and over again that there is only one president at a time. But it simply is true. Second, it is probably fair to assume that Obama and his foreign policy team are in constant contact with the Bush administration about Gaza. And third, what would such a public plea to the Bush administration or a clear condemnation of Israeli air strikes in Gaza achieve on the ground? Nothing much would be my guess. After all, at this point whatever Obama could say would be just words and no action. Would that make Israel halt its pounding of Gaza? Probably not. Would that stop Hamas shelling Israeli villages? Probably not.

What it would do though is already force Obama to reveal some kind of Middle East policy at a time when he and his team may not be ready to do so. As Jon Ward analysed in the Washington Times, Obama's silence gives him time to assess the situation and his reaction. I also agree with David Corn that Obama hopes that this crisis is over before he takes office and the Middle East will persist as a serious problem, but the immediacy of it will have passed.

Corn also makes a great point I haven't heard before. Asked about Obama's foreign policy priorities, he argues that because Obama is facing so many pressing global issues he doesn't have a vertical, but a horizontal to-do list.

Nobel Laureate Predicts Obama Will Change Economic Policy And Improve Regulation

Nobel-winning economist Robert Solow predicts that President Barack Obama will lead U.S economic and foreign policy in a different direction: "The Obama administration in the coming four, but probably eight, years will bring real change to economic policy and foreign policy," Solow told German business daily Handelsblatt in an interview (in German). "But I don't think that the nature of American capitalism will change dramatically. But at its fringes there will be changes and it will be better regulated."

Asked whether he would accept a position as advisor to Obama, Solow, who received the Nobel prize in 1987 for his work on economic growth, said that Obama doesn't need a 84 year-old advisor. Instead, Solow added: "Obama should look for younger advisors among my students – which he has already done."

Concerning the financial crisis, Solow doesn't think the current situation is comparable to the global crisis of 1929. "Nobody believes that unemployment in the U.S. will rise to 30 percent," he said. "We are talking today about an active fiscal policy that goes in the right direction, while taxes were increased in the 1930s. Today, no one in their wildest dreams would come up with something like that. We have learned from that crisis."

Oh, if you have been trying to figure out an explanation for the financial crisis and failed to come up with a cogent one, don't fret, even a nobel laureate in economics like Solow is flummoxed: "I don't think that normal economic thinking can help explain this crisis."

Obama In A Holding Pattern On Renewed Middle East Hostilities

Two Timeses, one in London and the other in New York, have taken looks at what the increased Middle East hostilities will mean for the incoming Obama administration, and they come up somewhat empty.

That's because Obama is insisting on maintaining his position about there only being one president at a time who should speak for the United States. And really, it's not as if either paper suggests he even has any alternative.

The best quote in either story comes from Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center: "What this does is present the incoming administration with the urgency of a crisis without the capacity to do much about it."

That leaves both papers searching, as the Times of London says is happening in the Middle East right now, trying "to decipher the candidates' often conflicting policy statements for clues as to how the new administration intends to proceed," referring to both Obama and his Secretary of State nominee, Hillary Clinton.

It was worth a try, but fairly fruitless. I've written before about the value of such exercises in the past; this time, little gets accomplished.

Merry Christmas, Barack Obama: Intel Officials Say Terrorists Plan WMD Attacks

In a rather unpleasant Christmas gift for the incoming president, yet another expert analysis has warned of the threat of weapons of mass destruction attacks, per the AP's Eileen Sullivan.

The report by the Department of Homeland Security details a variety of threats over the next five years, which roughly coincide with the first Obama administration. But the threat of WMD attacks stands out. They would do the most damage, and some have theorized that the reason the U.S. hasn't been attacked in the homeland since Sept. 11 is because they don't want to bother with anything that doesn't eclipse the 2001 assault.

Lest it seem like the kind of persistent warning that some view as hype, the report does note that WMD attacks would be very difficult to carry out. But between this report and that of the recent WMD commission, it's exceedingly clear that expert Washington opinion points to the need for the Obama administration to focus heavily on WMDs.

Christmas Celebration A La Obama, Merkel And Steinmeier

Even world leaders take some time off for the holidays. If you don't know by now where and how (turkey and ham in Hawaii) President-elect Barack Obama is spending his Christmas break, you have probably chosen to observe a self-imposed media blackout for the last days.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christmas vacation usually receives less press coverage than does Obama's - which she is probably not too unhappy about. Just like last year, she travelled to the mountains to do some cross-country skiing. As we are told, the Merkel family Christmas menu featured goose, prepared by the Chancellor herself.

Foreign Minister and Social Democratic candidate for chancellor, Frank Walter Steinmeier, spent Christmas with the family in Westphalia. For dinner on Christmas eve, the Steinmeier's had Kasselerbraten with Sauerkraut. The Steimeier Christmas also features singing under the christmas tree and going to church.

Whether you are on the beach, in the mountains, or simply staying at home: Happy holidays!

Hillary Clinton Plans To Strengthen State Department's Role In The Economy, But How Is Less Clear

The New York Times has a fairly meaty piece about Hillary Clinton's intention to beef up (no pun intended; OK, pun intended) the State Department.

Among the highlights: She wants to strengthen the State Department's portfolio on economic issues; she could name special envoys to places like Iran and India; and she has given one official the role of pushing for more money for diplomats.

The latter two are fairly straightforward. Although the piece said the push for an expanded State Department could bring Clinton into conflict with other administration officials, it simultaneously says that Pentagon chief Robert Gates and incoming national security adviser James Jones are on board with giving more resources to State. That fits with the incoming administration's greater emphasis on diplomacy.

What the piece leaves out is whether the administration's economic team backs Clinton's ideas. And it's not especially clear what the State Department would do that was different from what it does now, like whether State would steal some jurisdiction from Treasury or perform new roles altogether. Those kind of unanswered questions aren't uncommon for a piece delving into discussions about decisions that aren't final, but they will be worth watching to see how they get resolved.

Change The Constitution For Arnie?

Let's be honest, ever since election night we have been inunandated with everything we ever wanted to know about the President-elect Barack Obama and his upcoming administration: his foreign policy team of rivals, his economic team, the challenges he will face as of January 20th, whether or not his cabinet choices include too many Clinton holdovers, whether or not Liberals or Republicans have reasons to be happy about Obama's cabinet picks, and so on. Let's not even start to look at the more gossipy aspects of the President-elect.

So while we are all a little fatigued after six weeks of incessant news about 44, let's look beyond the next four years of the Obama presidency and enjoy some news relief straight out of the state of California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes that he would like to be President of the United States. Problem is the Constitution would have to be changed since Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in Austria. But as he told 60 Minutes: "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high they are almost impossible to achieve."

What are the odds that an Austrian-born Governor of California could become president? A presidential betting site for 2012 has odds for lots of possible candidates including Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Ron Paul and Brian Schweitzer. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not (yet) on the list.

Wishes For President Obama

Well, it's that time of year again. Reuters asked German analysts and fund managers what they would wish from President-elect Barack Obama if they could ask him for one thing. I gather that the response from the finance community wasn't exactly overwhelming. Here are two people who actually had a wish for Obama:

Alexandra Hartmann, fund manager at Fidelity International, hopes Obama will see to it that the current printing of money ultimately doesn't lead to high inflation. Jens Wilhelm, board member at Union Investment, expressed his wish "that Obama won't wall off the U.S. and hurt global business activity through protectionist measures. The U.S. still serves as an important role model for the global economy. Therefore it is critical that Obama throws his weight behind the global business and finance system."

Not asking for all that much, are they?

To read their wishes in German click here.

Dennis Blair, Obama's Pick For Spy Chief, Also Comes With Questions

Seizing on a theme Michael explored here recently: The latest addition to President-elect Obama's national security team is said to be Dennis Blair for director of National Intelligence, and he, too, has endured a little criticism as the pick.

Bob Baer writes that the pick is "not quite inspired" in Time magazine: "The downsides to Blair's appointment are that there's little chance he'll lead the much-needed charge to streamline the intelligence community." And, Baer writes, his emphasis on tactical intelligence rather than strategic intelligence means that the spy agencies may be spending more time on soil samples than who has weapons of mass destruction.

Jeff Stein writes of some other problems for Blair; he made "controversial judgments" on North Korea's nuclear program, "dismissed the threat of Somali pirates to oil lanes" and came under scrutiny from the Pentagon's inspector general for alleged conflicts of interest.

And some human rights groups are upset at him because "during his term as Pacific commander, Blair was accused of going easy on Indonesian military officers accused of atrocities during a bloody conflict over East Timor, a former Portuguese colony seized by Indonesia in 1975 which became independent in 2002."

This list of gripes doesn't necessarily suggest Blair is a bad pick; some in Congress, such as Sens. Daniel Akaka and Jack Reed, have hailed him for his thoughtfulness, and NBC's Norah O'Donnell called him a "brainiac," per Stein. My sense is that he's a fairly well-respected figure in the national security community. But pointing out the knocks on him here serves as an addendum to the questions raised in Michael's piece about the other members of Obama's national security team.

Is Obama's Foreign Policy Team Really As Strong As It's Cracked Up To Be?

President-elect Barack Obama has received lots of kudos, i.e. here and here, for the selection of his foreign policy team. But sometimes in order to reach a broader perspective on a topic, it is helpful to get a contrarian view. In this case, it is provided by Melvin Goodman, a professor of international security studies at the National War College who argues that Obama has actually compiled a weak national security team. Here are a few snippets of Goodman's argument:

-In keeping Robert Gates at the Pentagon, Obama has a "secretary of defense who does not support many of the foreign policy positions that the president-elect took during the campaign."

-In selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama made a choice based on "domestic political reasons."

- In choosing James Jones to become his national security adviser, Obama has picked a person who has "never been known as a big thinker on foreign policy issues; his appointment, moreover, places another key position in the hands of the military."

- With Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, Obama selected two key figures who voted for the war in Iraq" and with Robert Gates and James Jones key players who defended the war in Iraq.

"With these inadequacies in personnel, it will be difficult to reform the policy process and flip the switch on a series of Bush administration decisions that have harmed the interests of the United States," writes Goodman.

With the exception that Hillary Clinton was picked merely for domestic reason (one can certainly make the argument that she possesses foreign policy experience), Goodman's other points are factually correct.

The question is what would have been a better alternative? Should a president choose only people who have shown total agreement with his campaign platform? Should a president forego political experience as a factor in making cabinet decisions? Should a president ignore the political landscape and the fact that the country has been rife with partisan divide for eight years?

I think not. A president should not select positions and govern along strict partisan lines or single issue stances, but instead must at least try to practice big tent politics.

Merely By Winning An Election, Obama's Foreign Policy Views Prove More Popular

Here's an interesting result of Barack Obama's election win: For no apparent reason other than that he emerged victorious, the public has more deeply embraced his foreign policy views.

Two months before the election, John McCain was the significantly more trusted of the two candidates on Iraq. The war was unpopular, but there was less clamoring for the kind of pull out that Obama recommended -- and that was a pretty consistent poll result throughout the entire campaign. Generally, McCain polled better on foreign policy than did Obama.

Now? Fully 70% of those polled support Obama's plan. And with things about the same in Iraq as they were a couple months ago, it's hard to see why they would other than that the country is uniting behind its president-elect -- whether it's because America has always loved winners or because of the historic nature of Obama's campaign and his personal qualities. The shift may be related to growing optimism about the Iraq War, but that doesn't explain why other Obama foreign policy stances appear to have broad support they didn't before. It all adds up, per Talking Points Memo, to a "mandate." (At least, for now.)

Climate Cooperation Across The Pond

Another sign that under President Barack Obama Germany and the U.S. may become close partners in the area of renewable energy and climate change comes out of Washington this week. Germany's Ambassador to the U.S., Klaus Scharioth, introduced The Transatlantic Climate Bridge, a initiative to foster cooperation on energy and climate issues between the U.S. and Germany. Expressing hope that the new American administration will give great emphasis to the issue, Scharioth told the AP: "I think it is no coincidence that the first video message after his election given by the president-elect was on climate change and energy."

According to the Washington Times, Scharioth stressed that by working together Germany and the U.S. could become an engine for transatlantic and global climate cooperation. You can find out more information about the project here.

Is Kissinger The Key To Restoring U.S. Relations With Russia?

Henry Kissinger's visit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow last weekend went practically unnoticed by Western media. I only found a brief piece by AFP on the topic. Not so with Russian outlets. RIA Novosti and Russia Today reported on the talk between the former Secretary of State and the Russian President at Medvedev's residence outside the capital. Kissinger, according to those accounts, agreed with President Medvedev that U.S.-Russian relations could and should be improved. Coinciding with the talks, the Russian navy in a display of strength was on route to visit Cuba for the first time after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Kissinger, while pointing out that he wasn't speaking for President-elect Barack Obama, stated that he was maintaining contact with the new administration and was sure an attempt would be made to improve the relations. According to Russia Today, "Kissinger said the destinies of both countries are closely interlinked and both can contribute to peace and progress in the world."

Kissinger's visit was also the theme of a RIA Novosti editorial. In the piece, titled "Looking into Obama's eyes," Dmitry Kosyrev gives the foreign policy veteran an important role in the future of Russian-American relations. While the best and the brightest of America's foreign policy community are mulling about repairing the relations between the countries, the "Republican Kissinger is the number one magician there," writes Kosyrev and adds: "Mr. Kissinger is playing a key role in getting out of this deadlock."

Whether Henry Kissinger, who had endorsed John McCain, is in fact playing the pivotal role described in the RIA Novosti editorial is an interesting question that, unfortunately, I can't answer.

So I'll just end with the rather challenging conclusion offered by the RIA Novosti editorial: "Medvedev and Obama are not the only ones who should look into each other's eyes. Our two countries should do the same."

Reports, Reports And More Foreign Policy-Related Reports For Obama, This Time On Genocide And Health

The foreign policy and national security reports from special task forces, commissions and institutes continue to pile up on President-elect Barack Obama's desk, all with recommendations for his incoming administration. They include the work of the Project on National Security Reform and the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. Two others are of more recent vintage.

On Monday, the U.S. Institute of Medicine issued a report calling on Obama to double health aid to poor countries, among other recommendations. Last week, a somewhat little-noticed report from a special task force on genocide also recommended that Obama increase funding -- this time to handle crises, among other, more prominent suggestions. (I say "somewhat little-noticed" because it took until Monday for the New York Times to give it some editorial attention.)

The trouble with any recommendations involving foreign policy funding is that while no one in the Obama camp has said foreign aid funding will decrease as a result of the economic crisis, they have signaled that they will scale back their original foreign aid ambitions. Another risk is that the reports, which should be taken seriously because they come from esteemed foreign policy hands or well-regarded specialists, could get lost in the shuffle of a transition where everyone wants something from the incoming administration.

Washington's Cuba Policy Due For A Facelift

In a previous post, I wrote that under an Obama administration a change of U.S. policy towards Cuba would be in the cards. Over the last couple of days, there has been a slew of articles arguing the same case: President-elect Barack Obama has a historic opportunity to shift Washington's stance toward Cuba. In an editorial for McClatchy, Lawrence B. Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, argues that a "new, decisive policy toward Cuba, wrought by the new "change" president, will send a clear signal to the world that America is back." To that effect, writes Wilkerson, Obama should lift the American travel ban for Cuba, amend the Helms-Burton act and temporarily lift the trade embargo to allow humanitarian aid for Cuba.

A similiar line is taken by an editorial by Florida's Charlotte Sun newspaper. "Southwest Florida historically has enjoyed a fruitful relationship with Cuba. Now, we're merely a landing spot for refugees. It's time for a policy change," states the paper and calls for an end of the travel ban, reengagement of communication with Cuba, and the establishment of a comprehensive approach to the relationship with Cuba.

Articles in the Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor conclude as well that a change in Cuba policy under President Obama is symbolically important to his change agenda and at the same time doesn't force Obama to spend too much political capital.

Framing Free Trade For President-Elect Obama

My CQ colleague Joseph J. Schatz gives considerable attention here to the dynamic of the free trade debate as President-elect Obama prepares to take office. There are a lot of moving pieces: the recession, skepticism about the value of free trade, Obama's own complex views on trade. He also touches on the subject of Rep. Xavier Becerra's potential appointment as the U.S. trade representative, a subject I addressed here.

A passage that sums up the piece, which I recommend to anyone who cares about the next four to eight years of free trade policy in the United States:

"Proponents of unfettered trade find themselves walking a fine line, extolling the economic benefits of trade while also being careful to acknowledge its costs to workers. Free-trade skeptics are finding narrower distinctions, too, accepting the reality of globalization — and distinguishing free trade and fair trade, for example — while pursuing their cause of protecting U.S. jobs.

This is the environment that President-elect Barack Obama, a professed internationalist, will confront as he develops a trade policy that defines the role the United States will play in an increasingly global economy.

Obama sent conflicting signals on trade during the presidential campaign and his transition to the White House, and that conflict is reflected in his incoming Cabinet as well. The man he is expected to name as the U.S. trade representative, Xavier Becerra has said he regrets voting for NAFTA as a member of the House in 1993; Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was instrumental as President Bill Clinton’s chief lobbyist in getting it passed."

Will President Obama Wake Up Solar Power's "Sleeping Giant?"

At Across the Pond, we wrote earlier about Barack Obama's fondness for Germany's rapid development of solar energy. The President-elect may want to look into the German solar success story even in times of economic turmoil because, as Reuters reports, the sector is comparatively stable and has the potential to create lots of jobs. The question is whether the solar power's "sleeping giant," as Frank Asbeck, founder of the leading solar company SolarWorld, has called the U.S., will wake up under President Obama.

Did Secretary Of State Rice Vote For Obama ,And If So, Does It Matter?

After lauding the fact the the U.S. elected its first African-American president, Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice in an interview with CBS Radio was asked whether she voted for Barack Obama. Her answer left Washington Post columnist Al Kamen who spotted the segment in the interview asking "So that's a yes?"

Rice's statement lead Toby Harnden, Washington Editor for Britain's Daily Telegraph, to conclude that the she had indeed voted for Barack Obama instead of her party's candidate John McCain. I think Harnden is right. The statement by the Secretary of State does give the impression that she voted for Obama. Question is: Does it matter if she did? And if so, should she come out and make it public as did her predecessor Colin Powell?

What do you think?

Cool Tool V: Advice For President Barack Obama

There are numerous reports, analyses and policy papers by think tanks, experts and policy wonks out there explaining what the next President should or should not do. Sure, you might ask, but who has the time to track them all down and decide which ones are worth reading. The answer: The Carnegie Foundation. They have compiled all the worthwhile stuff giving policy advice to President-elect Barack Obama starting with A as in ACLU to Y as in Yale School of Forestry and Environment. It is organized in five categories Defense, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security and U.S. Economy.

It's a great tool for policy wonks, but also for everyone interested in just browsing through interesting analysis. You can find it under advicetothepresident.org.

Supreme Court Rejects Hearing Obama Citizenship Case

As expected, the Supreme Court decided not to review a suit claiming that Barack Obama was born a British national and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States.

Here's the link to the document (via Below the Beltway)

Even though there is at least one more case challenging Obama's eligibility undecided, it looks rather likely that it also will be rejected.

So probably everyone making travel plans for the inauguration on January 20 can go right ahead.

Should Becerra Accept Trade Representative Job, He Would Not Fit Into The Obama Pick Pattern

Overshadowed somewhat by President-elect Obama's picks for his national security team is the offer Obama reportedly made to Rep. Xavier Becerra to serve as U.S. Trade Representative.

On the global front, as some (including myself) have written, Obama has largely picked nominees who you could easily classify as "moderate." On the issue Becerra would be in charge of, he doesn't exactly fit into that mold. Although the Democratic party has shifted away from the ill-at-ease pro-free trade days of President Clinton, the more "moderate" position on free trade largely remains embracing free trade as much as possible.

Becerra reflects the majority of Democratic voters now rather than the political center on trade. He voted for NAFTA, but has since said he regrets it. He led the opposition against CAFTA three years ago. Of course, it is not accurate to say that Democrats who are saddled with the label of opposing free trade oppose it altogether; they oppose it without strict environmental and labor standards.

But Becerra is seen as a pick who would be more skeptical of free trade than past presidents. "Getting a U.S. Trade Representative who is on record against the NAFTA trade model and with votes against CAFTA and Oman is a huge change from both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration," wrote David Sirota. "The selection suggests Obama is serious about reforming our trade policies, and it should be applauded."

Obama's Citizenship, A Topic For The Supreme Court?

It is unimaginable. What if the Supreme Court decides that President-elect Barack Obama can't become President of the United States after all because he doesn't fulfill the requirement of having been born in the U.S.? A suit, to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, claims that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S. and therefore can't become president.

While it is an entertaining what-if game, experts find it very unlikely that the case ever will be brought before the Supreme Court.

The Blog House by the Star Tribune thinks if Obama's Haiwaiian birth certificate is forged, as alleged in the suit, then "a U.S. senator and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (Ill.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of States office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois and many other government agencies. Sounds like a Vince Flynn novel."

I concur. The authenticity of Obama's birth certificate had already been a topic in the campaign and has been refuted convincingly. Here are again the links to Factcheck.org and Politifact.com who covered the issue in great detail.

For a review of what other bloggers have to say about the issue check out the Daily Intel.

Update: Readers commenting that the current case doesn't claim that Obama was born on foreign soil are correct. The claim in the current case is that Obama was a British citizen at birth. Thanks.

Obama And Biden Have Returned A Lot Of Congratulatory Calls From World Leaders, Huh?

Once a week or so since the election, the transition team of President-elect Obama has sent out e-mails about which congratulatory calls from world leaders Obama or Vice president-elect Biden have returned. About one month since Obama-Biden won, here's whom they've chatted up according to those e-mails, in reverse chronological order. So far, there have been no reports of any of them hanging up on him:

Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen
Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende
Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Kuwaiti Amir Sheikh Al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah
Qatari Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Indonesian President Yudhoyono
Afghanistan President Karzai
European Commission President Barroso
Haitian President Preval
Colombian President Uribe
Nigerian President Yar’Adua
Senegalese President Wade
South African President Motlanthe
United Nations Secretary General Ban
President Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina
President Bachelet of Chile
Taoiseach Cowen of Ireland
President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan
President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
President Saakashvili of Georgia
President Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines
President Gul of Turkey
Colombian President Álvaro Uribe
European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili
Greek Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero
King Abdullah of Jordan
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
Israeli Likud Leader Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu
Polish President Lech Kaczynski
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Afghan President Hamid Karzai
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India
His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan
President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya

--Maybe I just didn't get the news release, but this AP story by Nedra Pickler from Nov. 7 says that Obama spoke to a number of foreign leaders on the Thursday after the election. "Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the president-elect spoke to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown." So there's a chance he's spoken to more leaders than they have officially announced, at least via news release that I've seen.

--Where there's duplication, it's when both men called said foreign leader. Not included: The G-20 meetings of Obama representatives former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Republican Congressman Jim Leach.

Historic Window For Obama To Change U.S. Foreign Policy Toward Cuba

Even though Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is doing his utmost to antagonize the U.S., American policy toward his country and Latin America as a whole will not change drastically under President-elect Barack Obama, experts asked by the San Francisco Chronicle predict. Unless unforeseen events occur, the continent will remain on the foreign policy backburner for Washington compared to global hotspots such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Cuba, however, is one area where an Obama administration could alter its policy. With all the focus on Obama's foreign policy team, a major shift of opinion among Cuban-Americans went almost unnoticed. For the first time, a majority of Cuban-Americans support ending the economic embargo and restoring relations to the island. According to a new poll by Florida International University in Miami, 55 percent of those surveyed favor lifting the embargo and 65 percent favor normalizing diplomatic relations.

With the support of a majority of Cuban-Americans, Obama is in a great position to fulfill his campaign promise to lift travel restrictions to the island. His pledge to engage with leaders of unfriendly regimes, among them Cuba, also received further endorsement by the poll.

So while the big picture of U.S.-Latin American relations will probably remain unchanged, a reversal of American policy towards Cuba is definitely in the cards.

Tim Roemer, Dennis Blair Speak On The DNI Job; Two Reports Recommend Overhauls Of U.S. Foreign Policy/National Security

On Wednesday, two organizations -- the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism and the Project on National Security Reform -- rolled out major recommendations for the incoming president and Congress to overhaul a great deal about the way the United States does foreign policy and national security. You can read my coverage of them here and here, so I’ll spare you an enumeration of everything they said, but the two organizations recommend everything from increasing non-military aid to Pakistan to expanding the Foreign Service.

At separate press conferences to release the reports, in my capacity as a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, I spoke to two people who helped assemble them and also happen to be two prominently “mentioned” candidates for director of National Intelligence. Neither spilled the beans, in keeping with tradition in these circumstances, but I pass their answers along nonetheless:

Dennis C. Blair -- “It’s all in the rumor stage right now. Let’s just leave it there.”

Tim Roemer, when I asked him if he was being vetted for a job with President-elect Barack Obama -- “Could be. Could be. No comment at this point, but we’ll see.”

U.S. Ambassador To Germany: Obamas Team Of Transatlanticists Is Good News For Europe

William Timken, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, will leave his post after three years in Berlin on December 5. In an interview with the Hamburger Abendblatt Timken, a supporter of President George W. Bush, talked about German-American relations and his view of President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy team. Here are a few excerpts:

-Ambassador Timken on the state of German-American relations:

"As part of the transition process I have communicated President-elect Obamas team my information and my assessments. And I have said that the relations are as strong, mature, balanced and as versatile as never before."

-Ambassador Timken on what the world can expect from President-elect Obama:

"An outgoing administration should be cautious to judge about the next generation. But I will say that every change in the leadership of a country can lead to a new era. We believe that the extremly high platform of the relations between the U.S. and Germany that we have developed into a true global partnership is an excellent starting point for the new team. They won't find any problems that they have to solve."

-Ambassador Timken on the selection of veteran politicians like Hillary Clinton and James Jones to Obama's team:

"As I said, it is not up to me to judge that. But it is obvious to everyone that Senator Clinton possesses broad political experience and the future national security adviser Jones knows Europe and Germany very well. So the message is clear: Obama has nominated genuine transatlanticists to his team. That is good news for Europe."

You can read the entire interview with William Timken (in German) here.

Republicans Not Sure How To React To Obama National Security Team Picks

With Republicans soon to be completely out of power once Barack Obama becomes president, their views on the roll out of Obama's foreign policy team got fairly short shrift in media coverage today. There's another reason for that fairly short shrift: There was no consistent reaction from conservatives to distill into its essence. They seemed torn between a desire to give Obama the benefit of the doubt publicly; genuinely pleased by the number of moderates he picked; interested in the strategic aspects of the picks; focused on finding fault with the nominees; or more intrigued by different, but related, subjects.

Rush Limbaugh called the selection of Hillary Clinton a "brilliant stroke;" Rep. Lamar Smith went after Janet Napolitano for her "weak" record on immigration. These are not the Republicans who led in Washington for years in part because they united as one voice -- which may have led to their downfall when President Bush dropped in popularity, leaving them seemingly unsure of how to react to their new standing. Reporters with space constraints can't be blamed for not knowing which Republican remarks to pick; but this being a blog, click on the links throughout the entry for some of the conservative reaction.

Rice Nomination Says To UN: U.S. Is Open For Business Again

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama announced today that Susan Rice will become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. What the fact that her position will be elevated to cabinet rank means is best deducted from a sentence uttered by former UN ambassador John Bolton: "It overstates the role and importance the UN should have in U.S. foreign policy," he told the International Herald Tribune. From Bolton's neoconservative stance, that is defintely true. For others, for instance Tim Wirth, the head of the United Nations Foundation, Rice's selection, as well as the elevation of her post, are an important symbol to the world that the U.S. intends to reengage with the UN again.

From an international perspective, I think Wirth is right. Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. pretty much sidelined the UN from the beginning, calling for a radical overhaul of the institution. However, under Ambassador Bolton who once said the UN could lose 10 stories of the 38 at its headquarters building without anyone missing them, one could get the distinct feeling that even if the UN agreed to change, it wouldn't be good enough. With Susan Rice, the U.S. declares that is open for business at the UN again.

While Rice, who penned an interesting piece about Bolton's nomination for UN ambassador, will be less hostile to the UN, she certainly is no pacifist and is ready to have the U.S. act unilaterally, if necessary.

By the way, for an ununsual look at Susan Rice's background and family history click here.

"Likely To Be Tested Soon" Vs. Easy Start For Obama On The International Front

It's always fascinating to see the analysis coming to completely opposition conclusions on the same subject. At the San Francisco Chronicle, the headline is "Obama likely to face foreign policy tests soon." At the Atlantic, Robert Kaplan expects "success" early, with enemies that have little motive or means to test the new president.

As you might expect, there's a little from column A, a little from column B that's true. For instance, Kaplan is right that Obama is inheriting an Iraq where conditions have improved and look favorable. But the Chronicle piece, by Zachary Coile, notes that "calls for a speedy redeployment could be tested if violence flares next year around regional and national elections." Both are accurate. Whatever conclusion you find most convincing, both pieces are worth reading to get a sense of the best- and worst-case scenarios Obama could encounter... soon.

Latest Intel: Clinton, Gates, Jones To Be Selected For Obama International Affairs Team, Mixed Reports On Other Nominations

A day and a half removed from President-elect Obama's announcement on some key foreign policy advisers, news reports have consolidated on accounts that: A. Hillary Clinton will take Secretary of State; B. Robert Gates will take Secretary of Defense; and C. James Jones will take national security adviser. Secondarily, the best intel suggests that Obama will nominate Janet Napolitano to run the Department of Homeland Security; Eric Holder, attorney general; Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence; and Susan Rice, ambassador to the United Nations. And even further down the organization chart, James Steinberg and Tom Donilon would serve as Clinton's and Jones' deputies, respectively.

Among the top national security/foreign affairs posts for which Obama will not name anyone just yet, you'd have to put head of the CIA and head of the Department of Veterans Affairs at the top of the list.

(Perhaps the most interesting story about the Clinton nomination, via the New York Daily News' excellent Ken Bazinet, is that she apparently passed up the chance to be Appropriations chair, which is about as powerful as you get in the Senate.)

Obama Might Go Celebrity After All: Foreign Policy Advisers To The Stars Could Join His Team

As I've said before, we're afforded very little room for light-hearted moments at Across the Pond, so I take them when I can get them. The current opportunity is afforded by the fact that the foreign policy advisers to George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are contemplating joining the Obama administration.

The L.A. Times has the details here. Men like John Prendergast, who's enlisted Jolie and others to visit Darfur, are said to be interested in signing up with Obama, although there's no word on whether the feeling is mutual. But if it happens, there could be a little more synergy between Hollywood and D.C., sometimes called "Hollywood for ugly people." (In fact, it looks the quote is most often attributed to old Obama rival John McCain.)

If it happens, this might come across as a superficial move by Obama -- but the two men featured by the Times had serious international affairs bona fides before they enlisted with Clooney, Jolie and company.

Despite Obama, Continental Divide Between Europe And The U.S. Will Continue

Sometimes an article comes along that expresses exactly how one feels about a certain topic. Eric Frey's piece in the Forward about the continuing continential divide between Europe and the U.S. is such an article for me.

Never mind that Europeans in Barack Obama finally got the president they wished for argues Frey, managing editor of Austria's Standard. Americans still better not to expect very much support from Europe when it comes to stabilizing Afghanistan and closing Guantanamo. His conclusion: "The old division that America does the fighting and Europe pays the bill is likely to continue in the new era of trans-Atlantic friendship."

You can read Frey's excellent article here.

Obama And Clinton May Have Set Aside Their Foreign Policy Differences, But What Will Some Other Leaders Think Of Clinton?

Joshua Keating at Passport makes a very relevant point about another potential hitch with President-elect Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State: Not only do Obama and Clinton have their differences to work out, but Clinton would have some differences to work out with some foreign leaders.

Clinton once said Russia's Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul," and had suggested the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran. Those are two of the countries with which Obama will inherit the most difficult U.S. relations, and dealing with countries like that was central to Obama's foreign policy message.

Keating writes: "Obama and Clinton have shown they're willing to put the bitter Democratic primary behind them. Will the rest of the world?"

Is Gates A Republican Or Not?

Tim wrote a few days ago about Robert Gates being asked by Barack Obama to stay on as Secretary of Defense. Gates is certainly Republican-leaning and served under President George Bush senior, but as Tim pointed out, he is apparently not a card-carrying Republican.

That doesn't stop many American and international media outlets such as the AP, Time, The London Times, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Zuerich's Tages-Anzeiger from describing him as a Republican. That begs two questions: One, is there a reference guide or a data bank to check whether someone is in fact a registered Republican or Democrat? And two, is it fair to label politicians as members of a certain party because of their political past or inclination, even if they are not officially a member of that party?

Is The Obama Administration The Third Term Of The Clinton Presidency?

The trickle of daily and sometimes hourly news of the administration positions filled by Barack Obama's transition team is a topic for many global news outlets. Here's a selection of how editorial writers from Austria, Spain, Belgium and Germany think about the names that have become public so far:

President-elect Barack Obama's choices for top government posts are a sure sign that he has truly arrived in Washington and that he has to govern with the establishment and not against it, if he wants to accomplish something, comments Austria's Der Standard. "Obama's instinct switched the mode of operation to pragmatism, which is exemplified by his selection - Hillary Clinton, James Jones, Robert Gates, Timothy Geithner, Bill Richardson and Janet Napolitano who are all veterans.

As a team, they stand more for roll-up-your-sleeves problem solving qualities than for partisan squabbles. The visionary element, for which Barack Obama's campaign was attacked by John McCain as "socialist" has no place anymore in this power game." But that, writes Der Standard, doesn't have to be a bad thing: "Someone who really wants "change" is better suited with pragmatism than with revolutions."

Spain's conservative daily ABC (via dpa) argues that Barack Obama distances himself more and more from the idea of change than was the essence of his campaign. "The team that he surrounds himself with consists almost completely of politicians who had important positions under Bill Clinton. So far Obama relies only on veterans of the old establishment. One gets the impression that the U.S. is headed for a third term of the Clinton era."

The Belgian paper "De Morgen" (via dpa) focuses on how Obama's cabinet selection is perceived by the liberal wing of his party. "The progressive Democrats expected a radical break with the past. Not just with eight years of Bush, but also with the preceeding Clinton years. Instead, they get Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, a chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel), an attorney general (Eric Holder) and an economics team (Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers) who all earned their credentials under President Bill Clinton. Defense (Robert Gates) and National Security (James Jones) fall almost certainly in the hands of Republicans, even though the biggest change could be made in those areas compared to recent years of war."

Obama displays "an audacity for risk," comments Germany's Financial Times Deutschland. "To keep Gates is a wise but bold step because in his two years at the Pentagon he did an excellent job." Whether the choice of Paul Volcker to head a new special economic advisory group is a smart one, is debatable, writes the paper. On the one hand, it makes sense to establish a new body that doesn't have to concern itself with daily crisis management and can focus on abstract and long-term big themes like the reform of financial markets and the rebuilding of the U.S. economy. On the other hand, it is open whether this won't become a competitive group vis-á-vis the Treasury Department and the actual economic advisory group in the White House - the National Economic Council (NEC)."

Brennan Out, Gates In

What I was trying to get at here was that what President-elect Obama was putting together on his foreign policy team was something LIKE his oft-spoken "team of rivals," but not exactly. What he is putting together is something more like a "team of moderates," and Tuesday there were indicators that he was moving more in that direction still.

John Brennan removed himself from consideration of an intelligence post in the Obama administration. Brennan would have been the most Republican person in Obama's foreign policy line-up; he's been identified in news accounts as a "a lifelong Republican" who converted to Obama. But what about Robert Gates, you say? Gates, like Brennan, has served in the Bush administration, and there was word that he was the pick to stay on at the Defense Department for a while. Where Gates and Brennan are different is that Gates apparently has never been a Republican. But he's assuredly a moderate, like some of the other choices.

Next week, the rest of the Obama foreign policy team is up.

Hillary Clinton As Obama's Top Diplomat: Good Choice, But For Whom?

Although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the U.S. and international media are convinced that Hillary Clinton will in fact become Barack Obama's Secretary of State. One has to be careful with political guesswork, but I also think that it is a done deal. Since it became public that President-elect Obama has pretty much offered the job to Clinton and details of the vetting process have been reported, it is hard to imagine how Senator Clinton could not get the top foreign policy position. It would be a servere blow for Hillary supporters, Democratic party unity and Senator Clinton herself, if she didn't get the job after all. The only imaginable scenario, in my opinion, is some kind of serious ethical issue that would compromise her ability to function as America's top diplomat.

With Senator Clinton's ascent to the State Department considered to be a shoo-in, many outlets are already commenting what a Secretary of State Clinton would mean for the Obama administration, the U.S., and the world. Never shy to make his case, Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate why a Clinton in charge of foreign policy is the last thing we need. In a nutshell: "In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own." As far as Hitchens is concerned, to pick Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is not magnanimous and wound-healing, but foolhardy and masochistic.

Not impressed as well with Hillary Clinton as Obama's choice for secretary of state is the Financial Times. Not so much for the reason Hitchens' mentions, but for what the paper interestingly calls her lack of foreign policy experience. According to the FT, there are far more qualified candidates, so the question is why President-elect Obama wants her for the job.

Why did Obama pick Clinton is also the question David Corn poses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come up with an answer. Steve Clemons, a couple of days ago, took a pretty useful stab at answering the question, arguing that Clinton could play the role of bad cop while Obama portrays the good cop. For Clemons, Clinton as secretary of state is a brilliant, but also a risky choice.

Meanwhile from a more global perspective, the Jerusalem Post asks what's to worry about a Secretary of State Clinton that is decidedly pro-Israel, which is exactly why, according to the Washington Post, some in the Arab world are not enthused about that possibility.

And finally, Germany's daily Die Welt in an editorial already predicts the return of Hillaryland. Secretary of State Clinton, according to the paper, will serve President Obama until a point of her own choosing. This time frame, writes Die Welt, could last until before the next presidential election in 2012. Then, offers the paper, the slogan in Hillaryland could be that one term for Obama is good enough.

What Can The Catholic Church Learn From President-elect Obama?

Barack Obama clearly won the Catholic vote. And while President-elect Obama received a congratulary message from Pope Benedict XVI right after his election victory, the welcome message by many American Catholic bishops wasn't that friendly. Last week Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary of the Holy See, made news when he called Obama's policies "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic". Already earlier, America's Catholic Bishops vowed to confront President-elect Obama on abortion, stating that this is not an issue of compromise, but "a matter of absolutes."

Keeping the statements about Barack Obama by American bishops in mind, it is interesting to read what the head of the German Catholic Bishops Conference, Robert Zollitsch, said about the President-elect. Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung asked Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg: "Barack Obama has inspired people for his ideas. Can the church learn from Obama?"

And here is Archbishop Zollitsch's reply: "Obama has raised high hopes. It is the dream of America, that he alluded to. Through it, it becomes clear that man lives by hope, and that he needs goals, and also those kind of goals that reach beyond today. I see the danger here with us that we are turning into a society that is old from within. But we need the drive to inspire people to get involved. We as church proclaim a message that gives orientation and keeps people grounded. We have a hope that points not just into this world. I don't mean that as an empty promise, but as an incredible force for renewal that fascinates me until today about the Christian message."

The interesting aspect comparing Archbishop Zollitsch's answer to the statement made by Cardinal Stafford isn't abortion or any other issue. Archbishop Zollitsch surely opposes Obama's stance on abortion as much as his American counterparts. The interesting aspect is the tone and the receptiveness of Archbishop Zollitsch's statement. He didn't take the question as an opportunity to attack Obama, but instead analysed why he won and how the Catholic Church could learn from Obama's success. Again, that is not budging on issues important to the Catholic Church. Instead it shows a serious observation of and a willingness to apply the lessons learned by Obama's victory.

On Foreign Policy, Something Like A "Team Of Rivals" For Obama

Hillary Clinton and James Jones appear on track for key foreign policy/national security posts, Robert Gates might remain from the Bush administration and John Brennan may be next up on the nomination list. There's a trend here:

"..the emerging national security team appears to be centrist in orientation, with deep experience in many of the areas likely to be the focus of Obama's foreign policy -- including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and instability in Pakistan and the Middle East, where Obama advisers have been signaling a desire to make an early mark in the stalled peace process."

A Primer On The Global Aspects Of The Financial Crisis For Obama, Congress

The Congressional Research Service issues well-regarded reports to lawmakers that are never officially released to the public but that frequently leak more widely. Secrecy News is one of the organizations that specialized in scooping them up.

If President-elect Obama and Congress want a primer on all the options they have for handling the global aspects of the financial crisis, they could hardly do better than the CRS did in a report you can read here.

Al Qaeda Universally Thought To Have Made A Grave Misstep In Calling Obama "House Negro"

One of the arguments in favor of a President Obama -- not one that he predominately made -- was that, strictly by virtue of his skin color, he would immediately have an impact on the United States' reputation abroad. And he has proven very popular in many lands, particularly Africa, where people on the continent see a man who looks like them. But his skin color may now have tripped up Al Qaeda in a way that could be very damaging to the terrorist group.

In a new video, Al Qaeda #2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri referred to Obama as a "house Negro." The Counterterrorism Blog's Evan Kohlmann explains why Zawahiri did this: "Clearly, Al-Qaida is seeking to undermine the surge of popularity and enthusiasm for the Obama victory that has spread throughout the developing world, and particularly in Africa -- where Al-Qaida has strong vested interests in at least two ongoing military conflicts." But here's where the backfiring part comes in: "By playing the race card so quickly and so brazenly, al-Zawahiri may end up causing backlash against Al-Qaida in the very constituencies he is seeking to woo."

Over at Wired's Danger Room, Noah Schatchman notes the pettiness of it all: "Al Qaeda used to be the kings of propaganda, outmaneuvering the American media machine at every turn. Now, it's clear the terror group's information operators have stumbled, big time... That's right. The guys who used to kill people, just to get their death on tape, have been reduced to name-calling."

It is such a potentially monumental misstep that some folk -- starting with Spencer Ackerman -- are wondering why the State Department isn't making serious hay out of Zawahiri's remarks. "That sort of disruption is precisely what the U.S. needs to rapidly exploit," Ackerman wrote. "In both policy and public-diplomacy terms, the clay is still wet."

The Value Of Looking Ahead For Obama

The top-ranking intelligence analyst in the country gave a speech I attended today about the future of the Middle East. He identified a great number of factors that would contribute to that future, circa 2025: a “youth bulge;” the consequent need for more education; a slow shift away from oil as an energy source that would affect the region's economy; scarce resources; the possibility of Al Qaeda fading and other terror groups that may be more dangerous emerging in their place; whether autocratic governments can meet the needs of an increasingly demanding populace; and the prospects of a nuclear Iran.

The official, Thomas Fingar, said the Middle East is likely to be “at the center of an arc of instability.” But he also cautioned that the projections he made – which are from a forthcoming report – could be way, way off. Projections that far out, for decades upon decades, have been “universally wrong. They missed everything that was important.”

That said, I believe the below passage is the most important part of all this:

“The timing of these reports is deliberate, that we’d like to get it to members of a new administration for a last time around, a reelected, replenishing itself administration. New officials coming in with agendas, with expectations, to catch them in that window before they are consumed by the inbox and the press of day-to-day events. To think a little more about the world outside of their portfolio, the way in which events that are in a job jar of other officials might affect them, to link up their own aspirations and policies and concerns to those of others to begin to think about potential allies to be able to anticipate foreign reactions to it.”

Everyone in the intelligence world who thinks about the subject deeply makes this point all the time: One can’t get too caught up in the day-to-day crises and take an eye off the distant future. And if it sounds crazy to suggest a president who’s coming into an economic crisis and two wars ought to be thinking about 2025 at all, well, just consider that two presidential candidates spent the entire campaign saying that the United States should have been thinking about putting together a real energy plan years and years ago. And then consider how much different the world might be now if that had happened – on terrorism and gas prices, and how related those two things are to the United States’ Middle East policy, and on the dual wars the United States is waging for some combination of all that and then how those things are in and of themselves related to the current economic crisis.

The Complicated Parts Of Selecting Hillary Clinton For Secretary Of State

There’s much to be said for President-elect Obama selecting Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But I do think the positives have to be weighed against the potential negatives.

Newsday’s headline says “Clinton, Obama’s foreign policy views not so different.” Insofar as both are Democrats and have more in common with one another than they did McCain, that’s true. But during the primary, they were less alike on foreign policy than on any other issue. Obama’s main case against Clinton during the primary was that she voted for the Iraq War he opposed. Clinton’s main case against Obama during the primary was that he was too green to handle a foreign crisis, and that McCain would be a better president than him because of it. Obama got over the Iraq War vote issue when it came to selecting Joe Biden as his running mate, and Clinton saw fit to campaign for Obama, so that’s not insurmountable.

But that’s not their only policy difference. Obama and Clinton disagreed intensely over the terms of meeting with the foreign leaders of enemy countries. Assuredly, Obama watered down his “meet without preconditions” position as the campaign wore on, but if he wanted Clinton to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would she do it?

Additionally, there are structural issues here. With the Clintons, you never get just one. As the Washington Post wrote: “Bill Clinton's web of personal financial ties and public policy pronouncements about the world's challenges would instantly become a source of possible discord with a new Obama administration as his wife travels the same world circuit as America's official emissary.” And how would she and Biden divide foreign policy roles between themselves? Between the Clintons, Biden and Obama himself, we’re talking about more than one of what Henry Kissinger refers to as a “strong personality.”

It’s all very complicated.

CORRECTED: To accurately reflect Clinton's position on the Iraq War. Thanks to the reader who caught the mistake, purely of the mental variety.

Finally, Someone Explains How The Economic Situation Weighs On U.S.-International Relations

This is the connection between the economic crisis and U.S. foreign policy I kept waiting for someone to make explicit during the campaign.

From the Washington Post:

"Intelligence officials are warning that the deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to respond to a new wave of security threats.

U.S. government officials and private analysts say the economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said.

The crisis could also accelerate the shift to a more Asia-centric globe, as rising powers such as China gain more leverage over international financial institutions and greater influence in world capitals."

Read the rest here.

What Standard Would Govern The Obama Administration's Policies On Interrogations Of Detainees?

There's been some pressure building -- from Congress, from religious groups and others -- for President-elect Obama to implement executive orders that would eliminate all harsh interrogation tactics. On the surface, the fact that Obama said on the campaign trail that he opposes torture would seem to suggest he would. But things sometimes change on the path from the campaign trail to the White House, especially when those things aren't as simple as they might first appear.

I've compiled some statements over time from the Obama camp, including a top campaign adviser, John Brennan, whom some believe could end up in a prominent intelligence slot in the Obama administration. I also included a comment from an outside critic. The language on all of this is rather tricky. Different people hold different definitions about what kind of interrogation practices constitute "torture;" they range from the Geneva Conventions to one early Bush administration legal memo which stated that only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" would constitute torture punishable by law. One proposal has been for all agencies to use an Army field manual currently governing Pentagon interrogators that would ban practices that include waterboarding, a kind of simulated drowning, in addition to other controversial tactics. You be the judge.

--Brennan before he joined up with the Obama campaign, CBS News transcript, Nov. 2, 2007:

“I think [waterboarding] is, certainly, subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffer, which is the classic definition of torture. And I believe, quite frankly, it's inconsistent with American values and it's something that should be prohibited."

“There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hardcore terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents.”

--NPR, July 7, 2008:

“Obama campaign spokesmen say he still thinks CIA interrogators should abide by the Army Field Manual, but he missed the last Senate vote on the issue.”

--Brennan on Obama, CQPolitics.com, Aug. 29, 2008:

“'He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case,’ Brennan said. ‘Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.’”

--Brennan, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2008:
“All intelligence activities under an Obama administration would be ‘consistent with U.S. law,’ he added. CIA waterboarding or other questionable practices are ‘not going to be allowed under an Obama presidency,’ Mr. Brennan said.”

--Citing “one current government official familiar with the transition,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 11, 2008:

“Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”

--Former intelligence analyst Melvin Goodman opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 14, 2008:

“Mr. Brennan, as chief of staff and deputy executive director under Mr. [George] Tenet, was involved in decisions to conduct torture and abuse of suspected terrorists and to render suspected individuals to foreign intelligence services that conducted their own torture and abuse.”

And then there's the whole question of whether Obama would establish a "torture commission."

Yemen And Algeria Are Two More Countries For Obama To Worry About

The apparently outgoing CIA director Michael Hayden on Thursday offered yet more countries to add to Barack Obama’s “worry” list.

In a speech on Al Qaeda, Hayden didn’t direct his remarks at Obama per se. But he was talking about emerging threats, and by definition that puts them on Obama’s watch. Aside from the immediate threats of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, Hayden said there has been an unusual side effect to victories over Al Qaeda in Iraq and Saudi Arabia: The terrorist group is spilling into other countries.

His remarks on the subject, as prepared for delivery:

“…Remember, point number one was that al-Qa’ida is a determined, adaptive enemy. In face of setbacks, the senior leadership recalibrates. It constantly looks for ways to make up for losses, extend its reach, and take advantage of opportunities. We are seeing this clearly today in places like North Africa, Somalia, and Yemen.

The presence of extremist sympathizers, the availability of weapons and ungoverned space, and the lack of effective security make these areas attractive locations for al-Qa’ida recruitment and training, as well as attacks. In addition, North Africa provides an easy transit point for those destined to facilitate or carry out attacks in Europe.

The level of focus and activity we’re seeing in these areas is troubling. In fact, recent attacks and threats from [Algerian jihadist group] Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb are greater in scope and severity than any since the group merged with al-Qa’ida two years ago. The suicide attacks against an Algerian military barracks and nearby café in June, along with several recent attacks on French tourists and workers, underscore not only the group’s intent to strike Western targets, but its ability to plot and operate even under tightened security in Algeria.

In East Africa, al-Qa’ida is engaging Somali extremists to revitalize operations. While there has been no official merger, the leader of the al-Shabaab terrorist group is closely tied to al-Qa’ida. And the recent bombings in Somalia may have been meant, at least in part, to strengthen bona fides with al-Qa’ida’s senior leaders. A merger between al-Shabaab and al-Qa’ida could give Somali extremists much-needed funding, while al-Qa’ida could claim to be reestablishing its operations base in East Africa, a base that was severely disrupted two years ago when Ethiopia invaded Somalia.

Yemen is another country of concern — a place where al-Qa’ida is strengthening. We have seen an unprecedented number of attacks in 2008, including two on the American embassy. Plots are increasing not only in number, but in sophistication, and the range of targets is broadening. Al-Qa’ida cells are operating from remote tribal areas where the government has little authority, and they are being led or reinforced by veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mentioned earlier that the threat to Saudi Arabia was probably more external than internal. These developments in Yemen are a primary reason.

North and East Africa and Yemen serve as a kind of counterweight to the good news out of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Make no mistake; these are not problems on the same scale as Iraq or Saudi Arabia, but al-Qa’ida’s strength in these areas demonstrates not only its adaptability and determination, but also its resilience."

Two Views: Republican Foreign Policy Felled The McCain Campaign, Or It Was Irrelevant To His Loss

In one corner, Fareed Zakaria writing for Newsweek: "The electorate has voted no on the current Republican ideology on foreign policy."

In the other, Joshua Keating writing for Foreign Policy magazine's blog: "If anything, voters saw Obama's foreign-policy vision as not objectionable enough to outweigh his perceived superiority on economic issues."

What does everyone else think about how much of a role Republican foreign policy played in the election of Barack Obama? Leave a comment to let us know.

(Me? I lean toward Keating's view, but disagree with some of the other points he raised.)

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: On Whether Obama Will Diverge From Bush On National Security/Foreign Policy

Democracy Arsenal takes reporters to task for, per Ilan Goldenberg’s words, “lazy” stories about “how absolutely nothing is going to change or everything will” on the foreign policy and national security front, now that Barack Obama is slated to become president. It’s a gross oversimplification of the articles he questions.

The Newsweek piece makes some valid points about the immediate, short-term hurdles Obama will face on his foreign policy agenda, such as the fact that getting to work on Middle East peace will have to wait until Israel’s elections in February and even, likely, after that. Goldenberg assumes that the readers of this piece will know that Obama won’t suddenly change the world, but I wouldn’t make the same assumption. Some Obama supporters I’ve spoken with have very high expectations. Some have toned them down. At any rate, I only see value in pointing out to readers the road map of bumps and hurdles that will make instituting Obama’s foreign policy vision difficult.

The two other pieces – the AP on Guantanamo and the Wall Street Journal on intelligence policy – are based on reporters’ sources telling them about specific plans underway. The Obama campaign has pushed back a little on the AP story written in part by the excellent Lara Jakes Jordan, who’s incredibly reliable in my experience; my employer, Congressional Quarterly, wrote a somewhat similar piece. At any rate, the article never states that the incoming administration intends to, as Goldenberg paraphrases it, “instantaneously” close Guantanamo. As for the Journal piece, my own reporting suggests there is some a question as to whether an Obama administration would want to be confined to the interrogation standards of a particular Army field manual. A top Obama campaign adviser told me in August: “He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case. Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for.” Surely many readers know that what campaigns promise and what presidents do once they get into governing mode sometimes end up being different things, as Goldenberg suggests. But if journalists didn’t point out areas where there was a gap between pledge and deed, what good would they be?

This objection, by the way, is no critique of the overall work they do at the Democracy Arsenal blog. It’s a good blog, one I link to often because it represents smart Democratic-leaning thinking on international/security affairs, and one I wanted Across the Pond to be linked to in return. I just object to this particular point.

Some Executive Orders With International Implications Under Review By Obama

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the incoming Barack Obama administration was considering taking action on a variety of executive orders, the unilateral actions presidents can take to make an immediate impact.

Obama would repeal some that President Bush put in place, as well as create new ones. I’ve compiled all the reported orders that have international implications, including those that touch on foreign aid, energy, the environment, immigration and intelligence.

The Obama team is considering getting read of Bush executive orders that:
--“…barred the use of U.S. funds by family planning groups overseas that provide abortion counseling.” (Bloomberg)
--“…linked assistance for combating AIDS in the developing world to requirements that health workers emphasize monogamy and abstinence from sex over condom use.” (Bloomberg)
--“…blocked California from regulating carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.” (Bloomberg)
--Allowed “drilling in fragile lands in Utah.” (Reuters)

The Obama team is considering new executive orders that would:
--“...create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.” (Post)
--“…chart a new course for immigration enforcement.” (Post)
--Require “that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act.” (Post)

But the Obama team is likely to keep an order that:
--Gave the executive branch “broad latitude for covert action in countries with which the United States is not at war.” (Associated Press)

That is surely an incomplete list. The Obama team has reportedly assembled a list of 200 orders that could be overturned, and it clearly has some new ones in mind that it wants to issue. One wonders if a couple other highly controversial Bush orders made the list, for starters: "...in October of 2001, President Bush issued an executive order establishing the tribunal system for enemy combatants. That was based on his authority as commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces. So was the NSA surveillance order, which set up the government’s ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps.”

Germany's Green Energy Companies To Profit From Obama Administration

German businesses stand a good chance of benefiting from the change brought by the President elect Barack Obama and his administration. "He will support renewable energy and that opens up great opportunities for German companies who are among the market leaders in that area," Klaus Zimmermann, president of the German Institute of Economic Research (DIW) told Focus magazine.

In fact, during the campaign Obama praised Germany's investment in renewable energy as a model.

Zimmermann is skeptical about the effects of a planned stimulus package by the new administration for the U.S. economy. The package with a planned volume of 60 billion dollars is rather modest, said Zimmermann and added: "I wouldn't expect too much from that stimulus package."

According to Zimmermann, due to the to massive budget deficit, the new administration will not be able to invest on a large scale. His advice to President elect Obama is to use the psychological effect that was created through his election to his favor and use it quickly. "In one year, this nimbus and all the glamor is gone."

Idea For A Compromise On Lieberman To Keep Him Out Of Democrats' Hair

Sen. Joe Lieberman has become a real quandary for Democratic leadership. He's an independent who functions as a Democrat, but endorsed John McCain and was extremely critical of Barack Obama. Some Democrats want him evicted from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where he could become a real thorn in the side of Senate Democrats and Obama, since Lieberman was most critical of Obama on his security credentials. Others fear taking away Lieberman's gavel would push him into the Republican fold, something he's indicated he might do.

The Washington Note has presented a tantalizing compromise: Strip Lieberman of the Homeland Security gavel, but give him something else -- anything that doesn't deal with security.

There is, however, one major problem with the idea. Lieberman, by committee seniority, is not very well poised to take over some of the panels The Note's Steve Clemons recommends giving him. He already has a couple subcommittee chairmanships, one of which would be stripped under this compromise because it's on the Armed Services Committee. Would the chairwoman of the Environment & Public Works Committee step aside to make room for Lieberman, or would the other senator more senior on the panel do so? It's hard to imagine they'd relish the idea of being robbed of authority that would result in anything nice happening to Lieberman. The one committee where Lieberman is best positioned to take over without any intramural fights is the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee -- not the most glamorous assignment, but maybe enough for Lieberman to save face and maintain some power in the Senate.

Iran, Afghanistan, Russia Top Foreign Policy Priorities For President Obama

Sure, the economic and financial crisis will be the unrivaled number one priority for President Barack Obama after taking office, and as some argue, even now.

But as exemplified by Russia's special way of congratulating the newly elected president, and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's lengthy message of congratulation, caution and advice to the President elect, Obama will simply not have the luxury to focus only on financial and economic turmoil at home.

So what are the most pressing foreign policy issues Obama and his team need to stay on top of?

For Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to a lesser degree Iraq, should be the near-term foreign policy challenges for President Obama. Haas also thinks the new President should not make an early trip to Europe, since there is no crisis that needs immediate attention by the American president.

Getting out of Iraq, cutting the military budget and telling the world that the U.S. is open for diplomacy are among the most important foreign policy issues, if you ask Slate's Fred Kaplan.

James Downey of the Irish Independent braces his fellow countrymen that "pleasing Ireland" will not be among Barack Obama's priorities - "his remote Irish roots notwithstanding." Consequentially, the rest of Downey's good analysis examines many other global topics that are more pressing than events on the Emerald Isle.

Obama's number one foreign policy priority should be to demilitarize U.S. foreign policy followed by removing foreign policy capabilities from the Pentagon and bringing it back to the State Department, opines Eric Margolis of the Edmonton Sun.

And finally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Afghanistan and Russia make the list of Brian Wilson, a former Minister of State at the British Foreign Office. I stumbled over his piece in Scotland on Sunday due to its slightly trashy, yet classy headline (next to the picture that will come straight to your mind when you read it): "Can super Obama save the world?"

Who is right, who is wrong, and what global hotspot do you think they all missed?

Al Qaeda Unsure About How To View The Election Of Obama -- Unless The Experts Are Unsure About Al Qaeda

Which presidential candidate the terrorists wanted to win became a campaign issue, but now that Barack Obama is set to become president, they seem to be a little… confused. And making matters worse, experts are just as divided over Al Qaeda's attitudes toward elections.

During the campaign, a Hamas leader endorsed Obama; then, the Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda seemed to favor John McCain. Over at the New York Daily News, ace terrorism reporter James Gordon Meek has dug into what they think now. The answer? They are “flummoxed.” Some want to call a truce with Obama. Others argue that the United States is the enemy no matter who is president, according to Meek. But after the story published, one former counterterrorism operative told Meek he got the story wrong altogether -- contradicting what another expert told Meek. Either way, Meek pointed out, Al Qaeda still has not made any official remarks about the election results.

Is it possible that they don’t care? Meek found that much of the Internet chatter among Al Qaeda types was focused on Wall Street’s collapse, not the U.S. elections. And at the Counterterrorism Blog, Roderick Jones notes that Al Qaeda seemingly made no attempt to influence the election, and said that perhaps previous attempts to influence elections were misread.

Brzezinski: American Foreign Policy Will Change In Substance And Tone

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter and foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, told Deutsche Welle what kind of change he expects President Obama to bring to U.S. foreign policy: "There will be a change. There will certainly be a change in its philosophy, in its priorities, but there will not be a dramatic change in all of its manifestations. You have to think of foreign policy as, for example, a boat moving on the sea. A huge ocean liner doesn't change its course in the way that a fast motor boat does. Therefore it is not possible for the United States dramatically to change every one of its policies. But I think there will be a significant shift in substance and in tone."

To read our entire interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski click here.

Roundup: Hackers And Obama, Palin And Africa, The Exile Of McCain’s Foreign Policy Adviser And A “Sun Tan”

There are a flood of tiny items trickling out on the foreign policy front since the election, albeit with varying degrees of substance. Might as well hit a bunch at once.

--The most serious of these items is Newsweek’s report that foreign hackers broke into the computer systems of the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain. “Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps' policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration,” Newsweek reported. Obama’s team speculated the hackers might be Russian or Chinese, and it’s a good guess, based on the fact that counterintelligence officials say those are the two countries spying on us the most these days. President-elect Obama would be wise to devote some serious energy to shoring up the United States’ counterintelligence and cybersecurity efforts, subjects that are hugely important within the intel world these days but that received virtually no attention from the candidates.

--When Fox News reports something negative about conservatives, it must be paid attention to: The channel reported that, according to sources within the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin exhibited a knowledge of the world that I estimate wouldn’t have surpassed the understanding of a great many high school students or worse. Things like thinking Africa was a country and not knowing which countries are part of NAFTA. On one hand, it’s not as if Palin exhibited much understanding of foreign policy in public. On the other hand, feuding between McCain and Palin factions of the campaign broke out into the open late in the race, and this also sounds like a pretty transparent attempt at score-settling. Palin, for her part, says the story is false.

--Toward the end of the race, said a McCain campaign spokesman, foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann was exiled from the campaign, although the spokesman didn’t say why. An earlier report that said he’d been outright fired explained the decision by saying that Scheunemann had been infighting within the campaign on behalf of Palin. On one hand, given Scheunemann’s neocon credentials and Palin’s seeming inclination in that direction, it makes sense. On the other, that means he would have been siding with someone whose wardrobe was worth more to the campaign than him.

--In my rundown of foreign leader reactions to Obama’s election, I left out this one: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi praised, as one of Obama’s attributes, that he was “sun tanned.” Berlusconi is notorious for his tendency toward controversial jokes, but this one was especially ill-timed.

Interviews With Blix, Kempe, Steenblock About Obama's Victory

We try not to do much self promotion at Across the Pond. But since we have done some pretty good interviews about the U.S. election at DW-WORLD.DE, allow me to pass on some links.

Here is our interview with Fred Kempe, President of the Atlantic Council of the United States and former editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.

Here is our interview with Hans Blix, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector and former Head of the IAEA (in German).

And here is our interview with Rainder Steenblock, OSCE election observer in Ohio and spokesman on European affairs for the Greens in the German Bundestag (in German).

I'll update the post, if I can provide English versions of the interviews.

The World Celebrates Obama -- But A Few Countries Already Have Demands

Around the world, leaders have mostly greeted the election of Barack Obama with enthusiasm, some of which is routine “congratulations to the new guy” you’d get with any U.S. election and some of which is no doubt informed by exhaustion with the President Bush years and a sincere appreciation of the unique accomplishment of Obama, as well as his more collaborative-sounding agenda on the international front. But not everyone is just offering friendly words; a few countries are lining up with demands.

ThinkProgress.org has the lengthiest rundown. Spain’s president expects “a more fluid and positive relationship” under Obama, no doubt a reference to some feuding with Bush over Iraq. Germany’s chancellor has had fairly close relations with Bush, but even she envisioned “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

But as I said, a few world leaders have already communicated their expectations. Afghanistan’s president said: “The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in our country, rather, our country is a victim of terrorism and we demand for civilian casualties to be eliminated.” Obama’s remarks about the need to cut down on those casualties and do more than military intervention were of course a subject of some controversy after Republicans made a political issue out of it. Russia’s president didn’t congratulate Obama at all, and aside from a vague expression of hope that Obama could improve relations between the two countries, Russia’s primary response was to announce its intention to station missiles near Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans for Europe – plans that Obama has been decidedly cool toward. Israeli and Palestinian leaders expressed a desire to see Obama bring peace in the Middle East.

Even the upbeat European Union was hinting at some potential conflict, as one of its officials said she would be in touch with Obama to “make sure we are working together on opening free trade,” arguably the area of Obama’s policies that makes Europe most nervous. A few countries were decidedly cool about the election of Obama. Other countries hinted more vaguely at hoping Obama would work with the world on the international financial crisis, energy, terrorism, food shortages, global warming and more than a few other subjects.

Already, Plenty On The Agenda Of President-Elect Obama

President-elect Barack Obama said tonight: "And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand."

Guess what, President-elect Obama? The European Union already has an agenda for you, because the eyes of the world ARE watching. In fact, they had the agenda before you won the race. You can read it here.

Since you've won, a few world leaders have had something to say, too.

(Oh, and if you didn't have enough messes to clean up back home: Wired's Danger Room would like to introduce you to the Pentagon.)

Vote, Watch And Party

Today is the day. If you live in the U.S. have fun voting. If you live outside the U.S. have fun watching how the election plays out.

In the mood for an election party? Go to The Washingtonian's After hours blog to find out where to hang out in DC. Go to Bild.de to find out where to party the election away in Berlin.

Looking Ahead On Somalia And Drug Violence In Mexico, The Shape Of The CIA And NSC And More

Following on the heels of the Director of National Intelligence’s forecast for the next president, some other outlets are getting in on the forward-looking game.

Foreign Policy magazine has a great list of issues that were neglected during the campaign, some of which overlap with the DNI’s take. The global food crisis and the rise of China made both lists, but Foreign Policy alone mentioned illegal immigration, drug violence in Mexico and instability in Somalia as topics either President Obama or President McCain would have to deal with that candidates Obama and McCain haven’t discussed much.

At the Counterterrorism Blog, Douglas Farah also laments the candidates’ lack of focus on Somalia, arguing that it is the foremost concern among non-state actors. “Whoever wins the presidency next week will face a series of international challenges from non-state actors that are being little discussed on the campaign trail and largely ignored by the media in the run up to the presidential vote,” he writes in a post that also mentions the spread of Hezbollah into sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. “It is too bad, as the next president will likely have to spend as much time on these issues as he does the economy.”

Newsweek, via Democracy Arsenal, paraphrases a McCain proposal to revive the old OSS intelligence agency but injects a little speculation that McCain wants to, in turn, dismantle the CIA. I think that’s coming from a spy community that’s worried McCain is too militaristic to defend the interests of a domestic intelligence agency, but my take was totally different – McCain has, in the past, criticized the Pentagon for wanting to hoard intelligence authority. It’s possible the neocon elements in his campaign dislike the CIA the same way all the neocon elements in the United States do and they’ve convinced McCain the CIA can’t be saved, but there’s no evidence of that theory. McCain hasn’t exactly said where the new OSS would fit into the greater spy community, so it’s easier to speculate on what he’d do to shoehorn it in there.

Bloomberg’s story on the presidential transition shares this tantalizing tidbit about discussions within the Obama camp about restructuring the National Security Council: “Among the array of questions being discussed is whether to restructure the National Security Council in light of post- Sept. 11 concerns about domestic security, says P.J. Crowley, who worked in Clinton's NSC and is leading those discussions. ‘I give the Bush administration credit,’ Crowley says. ‘They recognized they’d be turning over two active wars and a Department of Homeland Security that's still a work-in- progress.’” But how would it be restructured, exactly?

Wenders, Rosenquist And Jackson On The Next President

German daily Tagesspiegel asked a slew of prominent people what they would dream up for the next American president. Here's what director Wim Wenders, former NHL player and now coach of Berlin's hockey team Eisbären Berlin, Don Jackson, and pop artist James Rosenquist had to say:

Wim Wenders: "My hopes for the next American president are first that his name is Barack Obama and that he secondly brings this big, vast country out of its deep provinciality back to the world. Americans have been living far too long in an imaginary parallel world that is not taking into consideration the needs and hardships of our planet earth."

Don Jackson: "I am not saying that the current goverment was totally wrong, I liked some things about its philosophy. But the country needs a shift in direction. We had the "bad boy" Bush, now we need a more gentle face, because our image in the world has to improve."

James Rosenquist: "We will witness a slow, positive change in our economy should Obama win the election. I hope and believe that we will bring good statesmanship to our relations with the world because Obama is not afraid of negotiations. The new administration will not exhibit the same reactionary military conduct as the last one. I am an optimist because there are many good ideas out there that people could make use of. I look forward to better relations with Germany, Europe and the rest of the world."

For all the other voices collected by Tagesspiegel (in German), click here.

A Taxi Driver For Obama, And The Electorate In Microcosm

Nearing the end of the campaign, I want to return to where my excellent blogging cohort Michael began in his very first post: To a cab driver.

Since he’s in Germany and I’m in the United States, I’m obviously not talking about the same cab driver he was; I didn’t get the name of mine tonight, but I doubt it was Heinz-Gert.

He struck up the conversation, asking me about the election. I asked him if he’d voted yet, and he said he had not, but intended to on Tuesday. We talked about the long lines my sister-in-law perservered through back in Indiana last week, enduring a two-hour wait with my baby niece, and I told him to be prepared for it. As a Virginian, he’s in one of the two or three most important states to the outcome of the election.

Prying, I inquired about how he intended to vote. “I don’t mind,” he said. “I’m going to vote for Obama.” Why? “Because, in the debates, he was very steady,” he answered. “He is very cool.” Elaborating, he said that he thought Obama would be a level-headed, composed leader in a crisis, especially the current economic one. He’d felt the effects in his own line of business. Then he shifted to talking about people in his neighborhood and the people he drove around the Washington, D.C. area. “No one cares about the Iraq War this time,” he said. “Maybe a few.” And: “The Hispanics are really going to vote for Obama. They are so sick of the Republicans on immigration.” I shifted him back to his own opinions, asking him if Obama being “cool” was the main reason he was voting for him, or if it was a matter of his positions and party, as well. He told me he’d voted for Republicans before. “I like Obama,” he said. "But even if I didn’t like Obama, or if it was some other Democrat, I would vote Democrat. It’s just time to do something different, you know?”

It maybe isn’t the kind of ringing endorsement the Obama camp might have written, but it was clear that some of the messages the campaign wanted to get through had sunken in with my taxi cab man. John McCain may have the edge on foreign policy and experience, but Obama demonstrated to one Virginian that if there were a crisis, he’d be up to the job. Domestic issues, not foreign ones, are his preoccupation anyway, which is where Obama has placed the emphasis. The rest had nothing to do with McCain or Obama. For Hispanic voters who favor more forgiving immigration laws, you couldn’t ask for a Republican more inclined in that direction than McCain, but it doesn’t matter. McCain is a Republican in a year where apparently anything he said or stood for wouldn’t have changed the mind of the taxi driver or the Hispanic voters he knew of.

The driver doesn’t represent any scientific poll, and he surely doesn’t live in the regions of Virginia that would be most McCain-friendly. But I couldn’t have done much better than him, and he mirrors a great many of the scientific polls out there. As Michael said back in April: “What do journalists do when they want to know what the average Joe thinks about a certain topic? Right, they ask a taxi driver.”

Obama Paid 700,000 U.S. Dollars For Berlin Speech, So what?

Some conservative media outfits have been trying to make an issue out of the fact that Barack Obama's campaign paid approximately 700,000 U.S. dollars to German companies in connection with his Berlin speech this summer. I really don't see what the issue with those expenses is supposed to be. Obama's European trip this summer was meant to bolster his foreign policy credentials and therefore clearly campaign-related. His highly anticipated speech at the Victory Column was as much targeted to Americans back in the U.S. as it was to a German or global audience. So it is not particularly newsworthy, nor scandalous, that the Obama campaign pays for lighting, sounds and other services necessary for the Berlin speech.

Having said that, I also don't think the fact the McCain campaign paid for Sarah Palin's outfit is a major issue. Palin, before being nominated as John McCain's running mate, didn't have to be present on the national and international stage. If she had to upgrade her wardrobe as a result of it, those costs are also campaign-related. Politically, the price tag of Palin's clothes could be more of problem for the self-proclaimed spokeswoman of hockey mums. Admittedly the new wardrobe wasn't exactly a bargain. But seriously: It should be common sense that a vice presidential candidate meeting international leaders at the United Nations needs the proper attire for those events. I am sure hockey mums agree with that too.

Intel Chief: Next President Better Get Ready For Vast Potential Of International Conflict

As if the next president didn’t have enough to worry about, the nation’s intelligence chief has laid out a fairly daunting picture of the world over the next 25 years. The potential for international conflict, he said in a speech Friday, is huge.

In the short term, said Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, President McCain or President Obama still will encounter risks from Al Qaeda. The first months of the new presidency are a particular risk. But even if Al Qaeda fades, because of conditions in the Middle East, successor groups are likely to emerge. And no matter who wants to attack the United States, McConnell said, the risks of -- in particular -- biological attacks that could surpass 9/11 will rise, given the spread of technology. America should expect the threat of terrorism to stick around for the next 20 years or so.

But, McConnell said, the risk of international conflict elsewhere will rise between nations as China, India and Russia – in about that order – amass wealth and/or population, creating competition for resources as basic as food, water and energy. “In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power, now underway, as noted from West to East is without precedent in modern history,” he said. Brazil isn’t part of that West to East shift, but its rise factors into things. Russia’s growth depends on diversifying its economy, he said. An estimated 1.4 billion people across 36 countries will lack basic necessities like access to agriculture, prompting intense competition for resources. Technology will help countries get ahead, he said, but won’t replace the need for traditional resources. And climate change and “global economic upheaval,” per the Washington Post’s paraphrasing of McConnell, will exacerbate all of the problems.

McConnell has briefed both candidates on all this, in particular on the terror threat. All the bases of McConnell’s speech are covered between the Post’s take and AFP’s, here.

Dueling In Virginia Over Defense, A Local Industry

I’m reminded yet again by an ad war in Virginia that foreign policy and national security are sometimes highly-localized issues. I’ve written about this phenomenon before here.

In Virginia, the Pentagon is a prominent local employer. As such, the question of who would provide the most defense spending isn’t only about whether we’re safe from foreign enemies; it’s also about jobs.

To make their case, Republicans have leaned on retiring Sen. John Warner, who touts McCain. “I'm confident as our next president, he will continue to support and champion the historic role of the state of Virgina in our nation's defense,” Warner says in an advertisement highlighted by Politico’s Jonathan Martin. Warner is a highly-respected voice on defense issues as a recent former chairman of the Armed Services Committee; he’s immensely popular in his homestate of Virginia; and he has a reputation as someone who doesn’t make partisan attacks.* All three make the advertisement highly significant in a state where polls show McCain trailing.

In his own advertisement highlighted by Martin’s colleague Ben Smith, Obama counters a false attack the McCain campaign has been making that Obama intends to cut defense spending by leaning on one of McCain’s own advisers. “John McCain’s gotten so desperate, he'll say anything. His defense spending attack -- it's a lie.” The ad quotes McCain military adviser Robert Kagan: “Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines to fight terrorism.”

It's just the tip of the iceberg of the ad war underway there on this very issue. And in addition to the other examples I provided before, the Obama campaign has recently been running ads in Indiana, which has a heavily manufacturing-based economy, highlighting McCain's pro-free trade stance and claiming it would lead to jobs being shipped overseas. How strange would it be if, in a couple key swing states, foreign policy ended up being the deciding issue in an election ostensibly about the economy?

(*Notably, Warner himself refrains from making the false allegation about Obama’s plans for defense spending, instead paraphrasing recent remarks from a prominent House member, Barney Frank. “Barack Obama’s liberal colleagues in Congress announced they will cut defense spending by 25%,” Warner says, although from the remarks it seems Frank was only talking about what he wanted to do, not what he would do or what anyone else would want to do. “Fellow Virginians, cuts in the defense budget will weaken Virginia's economy, weaken national defense.” It’s an upgrade from the false attacks on Obama’s intentions. Why not let voters decide if they’re comfortable with Obama in office if some [or even just one] Democrats want to cut defense spending, instead of making stuff up entirely?)

World Media's Predictions For An Obama Administration

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."

McCain Argues The National Security-Economy Connection, But Not As Adeptly As He Could

I’ve written repeatedly in this space – in my very first post back in April and plenty more since the economic crisis began to take root – about the links between the economy and foreign policy on the campaign trail. Per the Washington Post Thursday, John McCain is trying to make more of an argument out of it.

The argument, though, was a little muddled. "Raising taxes and unilaterally renegotiating trade agreements as they have promised would make a bad economy even worse, and undermine our national security, even as they slash defense spending," McCain said in a speech. "At least when European nations chose the path of higher taxes and cutting defense, they knew that their security would still be guaranteed by America. But if America takes the same path, who will guarantee our security?"

As the Post notes, Barack Obama has not proposed cutting the defense budget. He has proposed cutting specific programs, as has McCain but overall, he’s always made it clear that defense spending would increase somewhat under his administration. But McCain also failed to make an interesting point very explicitly with his remarks – that if the economy suffers, so does the United States’ security. A writer for the National Review did a better job of it recently. McCain has argued before that raising taxes – setting aside the question of whether Obama wants that – would hurt the economy, but just reading that quote, it’s hard to understand why McCain thinks that higher taxes would hurt national security in turn. Additionally, there is an argument McCain could make that Obama’s stance on trade agreements could hurt the country both economically and on the world stage – again, setting aside the question of whether McCain is right – but McCain doesn’t make that case very explicitly. And he doesn’t really elaborate on any of this in his speech.

The Post notes that Obama also has tried to link the economy on national security. “We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” he said. That’s a clearer message, more easily understood.

Generally, both candidates have been effective at times in making the link between international and economic issues. “Both candidates have also made it clear that economic issues loom large on the international agenda for the next four years,” the Post wrote. “Both pledge to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And although neither has sketched out a detailed plan for dealing with the international economic crisis, one of the early challenges facing a new administration will be how to restructure international economic institutions.” McCain’s latest message is not an example of that, and it may be too little, too late, but I’ve always wondered why McCain didn’t try more often to link domestic issues to what is commonly thought of as his strength on foreign policy issues.

What Will A President Obama Do?

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.

United States and Russia Have Indeed Had “Like, Fishing Disputes,” Not That It Proves Anything About Palin

On Tuesday, GQ’s Robert Draper published a blog post that quoted a top official with John McCain’s campaign amplifying on the defense of Sarah Palin’s international experience -- which is that Alaska is close to Russia -- by saying that Alaska and Russia have had “like, fishing disputes.”

It is true that there have been fishing disputes in the region. It’s not a tiny sum at stake: Fishing for Alaskan pollock is a billion dollar industry, and the pollock catches constitute “the largest human-food fishery in the world,” according to the Los Angeles Times. As those fish began to migrate toward Russia, tensions have escalated; the U.S. is worried about Russian poaching of the fish and mafia influence in the fish trade, as well as Russian opposition to U.S. scientists studying the phenomenon.

On the other hand, it’s not exactly been World War III, or whichever World War number is in vogue these days. After the broader, non-fishing specific Palin-Russia argument became prominent, a reporter who worked in the region a couple years ago wrote of a trip aboard a Coast Guard vessel: “Every once in a while, a Russian fishing boat would appear on the boat's radar, and the Coasties would have to board and inspect it. At that point, he would be called upon to translate. But this didn't happen very often. I asked him what he did the rest of the time. ‘I lift weights,’ he replied. ‘And play a lot of poker'... I guess the Alaskan-Russian front was more exciting than I remember it being -- I mostly recall seeing a lot of whales.”

So even if it was an issue Palin had gotten involved in, it certainly doesn’t suggest Palin had acquired any major international experience in dealing with it. But as it happens, I searched far and wide for any evidence that Palin had gotten involved in the fishing dispute, to no avail. On the contrary, I only found evidence that she had not been. Slate’s Fred Kaplan wrote in September, when the Palin-Russia argument was first being trotted out at length: “There are no issues between the United States and Russia in this region, except for the occasional tussle over fishing rights (in which, even so, Gov. Palin has never involved herself).”

The McCain campaign, and conservatives generally, have tested a lot of different messages by way of explaining how Palin has the foreign policy experience necessary. In fact, a conservative strategist apparently unaffiliated with the McCain campaign trotted out the “fishing dispute” argument all the way back in September, but no one took it seriously, except a liberal blog or two that mocked it. They might have been better off just picking one story and sticking to it, because they come in for a fresh round of mockery every time they throw out a new explanation. The reason is because Palin has no substantial foreign policy experience, and it’s just not possible to explain her into having it. And the McCain campaign knows it. Draper also recently wrote that he was sympathetic to a pair of campaign aides who had remained loyal by not “leaking what a couple of McCain higher-ups have told me -- namely, that Palin simply knew nothing about national and international issues.”

Why Are Most Russians Neutral On The Presidential Candidates?

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.

McCain Calls For Stevens -- An Old Foe On Earmarks, Defense Spending And Contracts, Detainee Policy And ANWR -- To Step Down

A handful of outlets, since John McCain called for Sen. Ted Stevens to step down following his conviction at his corruption trial, have made mention of the fact that the two have fought over earmarks. That has been the biggest source of animosity between the two, but not the only one, a search of my full-time employer CQ’s records shows.

Indeed, a close second are two fights the pair have had over respective pet issues with a national security bent. One of Stevens’ biggest legislative goals has been to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in his home state of Alaska to oil exploration. When Stevens tried to add a provision to that effect to a Pentagon spending bill in 2005, McCain called the maneuver “disgusting.” Likewise, Stevens tried to stand in the way of a McCain provision to ban cruel and inhuman treatment of terror suspects during consideration of the same bill. Stevens wasn’t as vociferous in his language toward McCain’s pet item as McCain was toward his, perhaps because he knew momentum was against him. “I asked him if we could take it out, and he said no,” Stevens said in his role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. “It does seem to me that he has the votes.”

There have been other conflicts, too. The earmarks feud between the two has sometimes spilled into Pentagon spending. Again in 2005, McCain called earmarks in the Defense spending bill (that Stevens helped negotiate) for non-defense projects like parks and museums “obscene” and “disgraceful.” And after a furor erupted over the award of an Air Force tanker contract that benefited a European company (EADS) instead of U.S.-based Boeing, Democrats tried to pin the blame on McCain, who had fought attempts to steer the contract toward Boeing because, he said, taxpayers deserved an open competition to see who could do the job best with their dollars. Along the way, McCain and Stevens again crossed swords. Wrote CQ’s John Donnelly this year: “McCain led the way in 2004 to block a no-competition contract for 100 Boeing 767 passenger aircraft that were to be modified as military tankers. That proposal was championed by Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who now is preparing legislation that would give Boeing an undefined piece of the new contract.”

There have been smaller skirmishes between the men on national security issues, such as how best to free radio spectrum up for the use of first responders like police and firefighters who would need it in the event of a terror attack. And much of their skirmishing died down once Democrats took control of Congress again in 2006; they even have lent support to each others’ reelection campaigns. But that doesn’t mean the relationship has been warm. When it appeared that McCain was on the verge of winning the GOP presidential nomination, CQ’s Kathleen Hunter wrote, Stevens was asked whether conservatives would rally to support McCain. “They’ll have nowhere else to go,” he answered coolly.

Are Europeans In For A November Surprise?

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?

Electronic Voting Machines Leave Room For Manipulations, Warns Europe's Biggest Hacker Group

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.

For Your Amusement: Sarah Palin's Stylist Vs. John McCain's Foreign Policy Adviser

Couple days late on this, but passing it along in case anyone missed it: Sarah Palin's stylist makes more than John McCain's foreign policy adviser.

There's not much to it; sure, one could raise questions about Republican hypocrisy for attacks on John Edwards' expensive haircuts, or questions about whether the McCain campaign values style of substance. It's an amusing diversion at best, any way you cut it.

I wouldn't even mention it in this space if it wasn't foreign policy-related. But amusing diversions on the foreign policy front have been few and far between this year.

Obama Running Mate Gives McCain His Foreign Policy Message For The Finale

And so, in the stretch run, foreign policy is thrust back onto center stage. One of the McCain campaign’s three major messages in the final days of the election will be to highlight the remarks of Joe Biden that Barack Obama will be tested on the international stage early on in his presidency. “We will focus like a laser on those messages in the closing days,” a McCain campaign aide told the Washington Post in a Friday story, with the other two chief messages being that Democratic control of Congress and the White House is dangerous and Obama’s remarks to “Joe the Plumber” about “spread[ing] the wealth.”

Biden was supposed to bolster Obama’s foreign policy credentials, but instead he has given John McCain some of his best ammunition to attack Obama on that front. Obama tried to wriggle out of it by saying that Biden was referring to the next president, no matter who it would be. It’s my own estimation that adversaries of the United States would want to test either Obama or McCain early, but it’s also pretty clear from Biden’s original remarks that he was referring explicitly to Obama. He said: “The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Now, it is true that Biden, despite saying that Obama would need “help,” also has strongly argued that Obama is equipped to pass the test. But it’s ironic that on the subject Biden was meant to strengthen the ticket, he has instead handed weaponry to the opposing campaign to aid their concluding attack.

Stop The Presses! Obama, McCain, Bush Administration Agree On Something (Negotiating With The Taliban)

I’ve written before about how Barack Obama, John McCain and President Bush have been playing a three-way game of tag on foreign policy subjects like Iraq and Iran. In each of those instances, though, at no time was the trio really ever on the same page, and certainly not without a bunch of feudin' and cussin' first. Now they are all magically as one, as of this month -- on the idea of meeting with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Says Obama, per Time magazine: “The Sunni awakening changed the dynamic in Iraq fundamentally. It could not have occurred unless there were some contacts and intermediaries to peel off those who are tribal leaders, regional leaders, Sunni nationalists, from a more radical, messianic brand of insurgency. Whether there are those same opportunities in Afghanistan I think should be explored.”

Says Gen. David Petreaus, per Reuters: “If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward.”

Says McCain, per a McCain campaign source who spoke to Wired’s Danger Room, via Noah Shachtman: “There are differences over timing, strategy, etc. But there is consensus that at some point there will need to be an effort to talk with some of these [Taliban] guys and peel off more moderate elements.”

"There are differences?" So maybe this time, they'll all start off on the same page, then end up going opposite directions.

Europe Favors Obama And Yes So Does Asia

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.

Al Qaeda May Or May Not Love McCain, But That Doesn’t Reflect On Him

Not so long ago, John McCain jumped all over Barack Obama after a Hamas leader said he would prefer to see Obama win the 2008 election. Now, with the tables turned after the Washington Post reported on Al Qaeda websites cheering for a McCain victory, the McCain camp finds itself in a very peculiar position.

The most important thing in all of this is that neither Hamas’ endorsement of Obama based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks Obama would do to aid its cause, nor Al Qaeda’s endorsement of McCain based on what THAT terrorist organization thinks McCain would do to aid the cause, reflects on the candidates themselves. Hamas thinks Palestinians would fare better under an Obama administration in negotiations with Israel. At least some in Al Qaeda think that McCain would continue the policies of President Bush, which would advance Al Qaeda’s aims of keeping the United States in a draw-out war that the U.S. would ultimately lose. But Hamas doesn’t speak for Obama, and Al Qaeda doesn’t speak for McCain. Only Obama and McCain and officials affiliated with their campaigns speak for Obama and McCain. Voters should feel free to consider whether Hamas or Al Qaeda are right about Obama and McCain, but when considering the policies of the two candidates, they’d be better off going straight to the source.

That said, the shoe being on the other foot has been an uncomfortable fit for the McCain campaign. Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser, responded in part Wednesday by rejecting the Post story and arguing that the terrorists actually support Obama, not McCain. That argument got no sympathy from the Tribune’s Washington bureau. “I'm not sure Scheunemann win many points from the fair-minded by doing to the Democratic presidential nominee the exact same thing he excoriated the Post for doing to McCain,” wrote The Swamp’s Frank James.

Biden's Remarks That Obama Is "Gonna Need Help" On Foreign Policy Raises A Few Discussion Points

Joe Biden gave Republicans an opening to attack Barack Obama on the foreign policy front recently with his remarks that the world is likely to “test the mettle of this guy” and “he’s gonna need help.” Biden was brought on to the campaign in large part to provide that help, but surely speaking about it in those terms is not what the Obama campaign had in mind.

The National Review examines the remarks from one perspective – the right – and Think Progress, from the left, digs up an example of a surrogate for John McCain who said much the same thing. Starting with Think Progress: the organization found a video of Joe Lieberman noting that “our enemies will test the new president early.” But Lieberman doesn’t think McCain would need any help, so the video, while countering some of the Republican arguments, doesn’t counter the fundamental one that McCain is ready if that test comes, and Obama is not. Aside from the question of who’s going to be ready, one thing that is noteworthy here is that there’s recent historical evidence that the next president will indeed be tested, with the last two presidents encountering challenges from Al Qaeda in their first years on the job.

And there are older examples of this, too. The National Review elaborates on Biden invoking John F. Kennedy, noting that after his first meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy admitted, “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts.” That would be a terrible problem for Obama if other world leaders thought that, too, even if the Think Progress team notes, plausibly, that “showing strength,” excessively, got the United States into Iraq. One suspects that the United States’ enemies would go after any new leader of the country, and maybe Republicans can make a solid argument that with his experience and guts, McCain will be better prepared for it than Obama. The experience side, anyway, suggests an advantage for McCain. It is on the question of whose policies are best that the argument is grayer.

(As an aside, one of the most interesting things discussed in the pieces above comes at the beginning of the National Review piece, where the author makes a valid point about how the economic crisis and foreign policy are linked: “Our country’s national security is inextricably linked to our economic vitality — especially in an increasingly interconnected world. In order to project power, we must have the ability to build wealth at home.”)

McCain And Obama On Asia, Africa And The World As A Whole

What took so long?

The attitude of the presidential candidates toward two continents gets some overdue attention from news organizations, with Congressional Quarterly examining the Asia policies of Barack Obama and John McCain and the Voice of America examining their Africa policies.

My CQ colleague Josh Rogin finds that the approaches of the two candidates toward Asia breaks down very much along the lines of their overarching foreign policy views. McCain favors “preaching democracy to adversaries in the region while at the same time prioritizing alliances over engagement with competitors in the region,” while Obama “leans toward more pragmatic strategies stressing incremental progress on regional security issues.” The piece focuses on North Korea, China and Japan.

VOA concludes that “Washington's foreign policy, whether under a President John McCain or a President Barack Obama would be almost identical to that of President George W. Bush.” Where there is a difference, experts concluded, it is that Obama has shown a tendency to be a little tougher toward Africa over its own problems, such over Darfur. A political science professor from New York does another take here.

Meanwhile, McClatchy and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel take a very long look at the candidates’ overarching attitudes toward foreign policy, in particular focusing on the hottest topics in the campaign. McClatchy’s ace team of Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay also go in-depth on McCain and Obama running mate Joe Biden.

None of these stories reveal anything particularly surprising. But what they do is condense mountains of material for readers – in the case of the McClatchy and Journal-Sentinel pieces -- or go in-depth for them on subjects that haven’t previously been explored at length – in the case of the CQ and VOA pieces.

Global Media: Powell May Well Be Decisive Domino For Obama Victory

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."

Foreign Policy Is Swaying At Least Two Voter Groups

The economy may be foremost on the electorate’s mind, but for two voter groups, foreign policy-related issues appear to be heavily influential, and they could be with a third group, too. In turn, those voters can be influential on the entirety of the presidential race.

Barack Obama is the favored candidate among Jewish voters by a 30 percent margin, but that margin climbs to 40 percent among Jewish voters who rank Israel “very high” among their priorities in evaluating presidential candidates. Given Obama’s periodic knack for remarks about Israel that have upset some supporters of the country, that is particularly surprising; the Jerusalem Post has the details on both that phenomenon and the poll itself here.

Obama has also fared well among Latino Protestants, a group President Bush won over in 2004, and according to a poll that measured that community, increasingly anti-immigration GOP rhetoric and policy stances are partly to blame. Again, this is something of a surprise, considering that McCain’s record on immigration is more moderate than that of the majority of his party’s elected leaders in Washington. Reuters breaks it all down here.

And Asian-American voters, some of whom pay close attention to U.S.-Asia relations, “could hold the White House key,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Catering to Asian-American voters’ interests in overseas affairs is complicated, as I wrote about here, but there’s anecdotal evidence that Asian-American voters do pay attention to foreign policy issues that affect the countries from which they trace their heritage. Which may explain why McCain was putting out statements last week on North Korea and Taiwan. “If either campaign is looking for a place to get an extra one or two percentage points, Asian Americans are not a bad place to get it.” Taeku Lee, an associate professor of political science at the University of California-Berkeley, told the Journal.

European-Style Socialism From Obama?

The U.S. presidential candidates haven’t spent much time lately talking about Europe, but the continent made a cameo on the campaign trail this weekend. John McCain this weekend compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders across the pond: "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the (Internal Revenue Service) into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," he said. "At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives."

But then, isn’t everyone a little less of a pure free marketer these days? Even if that's not the way they want it to be?

“John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people ‘welfare,’” answered Obama.

Joe Wurzelbacher Goes Global

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.

Murdoch-Owned London Times Endorses Obama

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."

Another Casualty Of The Financial Crisis: Foreign Aid Spending Under The Next President

While contemplating ways the financial crisis is affecting foreign policy in this presidential campaign – aside from the fact that the candidates are spending a lot less time on international affairs than they might otherwise – I thought back to something Joe Biden said during his debate with Sarah Palin.

Asked what spending programs a Barack Obama administration might set aside because of the financial crisis, Biden remarked: “The one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance. We'll probably have to slow that down.” Obama had pledged last year to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, “arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home,” according to McClatchy and USA Today.

In fact, foreign aid spending would not necessarily increase under John McCain, either. His proposal for an across-the-board spending freeze would exclude some programs – Defense dollars, for example – but McCain did not say foreign aid would be allowed to increase.

It’s already going to be hard for the next president to get on the rest of the world’s good side, and the financial crisis hasn’t exactly helped U.S.-world relations, either. But a reduced emphasis on foreign aid spending also means less of a chance to do what Sen. Dick Lugar said the next president needs to do more of, and what Obama’s foreign aid proposal was meant to accomplish: take steps to head off future problems by addressing them at their root now.

As it happens, the Council on Foreign Relations was thinking along the same lines, I discovered in researching this proposition. They make some additional points here.

Global Media: McCain Put On His Best Performance, But Obama Still Wins The Debate

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."

A Sage Voice On Foreign Policy Speaks To Both Presidential Candidates

One of the most respected voices on foreign policy in the United States gave some advice to the next president Wednesday, not that much of anyone noticed. And while not everyone agrees with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar on all of his positions, few would dispute he knows of which he speaks.

His message, ultimately, was that many of the foreign crises of the last few years and the next few years might be averted by a more forward-looking foreign policy. What few news outlets that covered Lugar’s speech took assorted different messages from it. CQ saw Lugar siding with Barack Obama by “part[ing] ways with his party’s presidential nominee Wednesday by endorsing Democrat Barack Obama’s approach to diplomacy,” although Congressional Quarterly also noted that John McCain “is right to warn that ‘there are times when diplomatic approaches to rogue regimes have little efficacy.’” The Times of Northwest Indiana, Lugar’s home state, wrote that Lugar “called Tuesday for the next U.S. president to be ‘relentless’ in pursuing national energy security by developing wind power, cellulosic ethanol and other renewable energy sources.”

Both takes are fundamentally accurate. What I found most interesting about Lugar’s speech was the way he used specific examples of how the United States and a rival, Russia, have laid the groundwork for future success. Lugar singled out the India nuclear deal Congress recently approved as a way in which the United States has ensured continued friendship with an emerging world power that will be fundamental to future U.S. aims in the world. Likewise, he said, “history may record Russia’s unchecked movement toward an energy supply monopoly over our European allies, as one of the most damaging foreign policy developments of the post-Cold War era.”

Lugar has some specific remedies worth examining here.

Obama Sweeps McCain In Austrian Poll

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.

McCain And Obama On Oil Company Tax Cuts

At the final debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, this exchange is almost certain to happen again: Obama says McCain wants to give tax breaks to oil companies. McCain says Obama already did. Obama says he didn’t want to.

This USA Today piece is the best I’ve seen all year about tax policy toward oil companies. It gets into the nitty gritty about how oil companies are taxed now, what a windfall profits tax would do and how this all compares to taxation of other industries.

It details the records and proposals of both candidates, so you can come out of the debate knowing for a fact that McCain’s tax plan would give breaks to oil companies, albeit incidentally, and that Obama did indeed vote for tax cuts for oil companies already. The article leaves out that Obama's support of the tax cuts was just as incidental as McCain's, because he voted for the overall bill that contained them, despite his opposition to them.

Don't Expect Obama Or McCain To Reverse Washington's Stance Toward The International Criminal Court

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.

Game Plan For The Next President: Playing Off Iran Against Russia?

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?

Palin Contradicts McCain On North Korea

If you thought Sarah Palin’s steady debate performance would put an end to her foreign policy missteps for good, you were mistaken. After John McCain came out against removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Palin said: “Condoleezza Rice, of course, having worked on this strategy for quite some time—I have faith in her that they're making this wise decision and North Korea, of course, better live up to its end of the bargain there.”

The McCain campaign tried to explain away the gulf thusly: “Governor Palin's position is identical to Senator McCain's: the verification steps are not sufficient to date to warrant North Korea's removal for the state sponsors of terror list. ... She believes Secretary Rice and the Bush administration are wise to pursue diplomacy and that is what she meant.”

Except McCain’s rejection of Rice’s decision is the very opposite of having faith in Rice’s wise decision. At no point was it apparent from her remarks that Palin was talking generally about diplomacy. This is not her first contradiction of McCain, with that honor going to her repeated contradiction of the presidential candidate on whether to cross over into Pakistan to hunt Al Qaeda. If it's a disagreement on the issues -- such as her stance on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- why not just chalk it up to the "team of mavericks," as she did there? No, this appears to just be a lack of familiarity with her campaign's stance on North Korea.

Former German Foreign Minister Likes What Barack Obama Says About Transatlantic Relations

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."

Next President Will Have To Deal With World Anger At U.S. Over Financial Fallout

Add another item to the list of world grievances with the United States the next president will have to deal with: Blame for the expanding global economic crisis. Whether it’s Barack Obama or John McCain, the new president already is going to have to grapple with a severely diminished U.S. reputation abroad. The Bush years, I learn anew every time I travel to another country and talk to people there, have made the rest of the world hostile toward America.

Now, the financial crisis has led to yet more resentment. “German Peer Steinbrück, points a sharp finger of blame at the United States, telling parliament recently that it is ‘the source’ and ‘the focus’ of the crisis,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor. “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick to point the finger last week. ‘This problem started in America. They have got to sort it out,’ he said then,” reported ABC News.

In many cases, that criticism of the U.S. has turned inward as countries deal with their own unique situations, and there are differing opinions on the degree of blame the United States should shoulder. And yet the fact remains: The next president is inheriting a world standing that has declined in recent weeks from the low, low point it was at, and that’s almost assuredly going to make it harder for the United States to call in favors even from its allies, be it on Afghanistan or any other foreign policy front.

McCain Stays In Asia, Where Obama Still Hasn't Visited

For the second time this week, the presidential campaign of John McCain has released a statement to reporters about a news development in Asia that the presidential campaign of Barack Obama has not.

This time, the country in question is North Korea, as opposed to Taiwan. Responding to reports that the Bush administration is moving forward with the process to take the country off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, McCain said that not only does North Korea deserve that distinction, but the administration did not properly include other Asian countries in its decision.

It’s unclear what McCain’s camp hopes to achieve by speaking out on a news story that hasn’t gained major play, and what Obama’s camp hopes to achieve by remaining silent.
Is McCain interested in steering the conversation back to an area of strength, foreign policy? Is he trying to work his way into news stories where he can? Is he trying to gain traction with segments of the elusive Asian American voter community? By taking a position that is in one way to the right of the Bush administration (opposing the removal) and in another to the left (favoring additional diplomacy), what message is he sending to whom? Does the McCain campaign merely think this is something he has an obligation to comment upon, as a potential future leader of this country? And why hasn’t Obama weighed in on either of these Asian subjects? Does his camp see little value in distracting attention away from the economic crisis that has driven a rise in his poll standings?

UPDATE: Obama weighed in one day after McCain, when the news was announced rather than before it.

Time For Obama And A New "New Deal," Demands Luxembourg's Leading Daily

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.

More Explanation On Asian American Voters And The Issues They Care About

This Slate article is more than a week old, but it touches on two recent posts of mine, first about Indian American voters and more recently about the candidates' positions on Taiwan.

The point of the Slate piece is that Asian American voters are often neglected by national campaigns. There are logistical reasons for this, such as the diversity of languages spoken and the fractured partisan allegiances among an ethnicity that includes Filipinos, Indians and Chinese. There is the fact that Asians of all kinds are concentrated in non-swing states, a point I raised about the component Indian community. But this is the key portion from the standpoint of substance, similar to the one I raised about what issues matter to Indian voters:

"There are also hyperspecific concerns that are not ideal campaign talking points: Chinese care a lot about U.S.-China relations. Taiwanese care about China-Taiwan. Vietnamese favor anti-Communist policies. And Filipinos often vote based on whoever supports benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II. Plus, segments of the Asian-American community often disagree—as Taiwanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans do on Taiwan, for example, or Pakistanis and Indians on Kashmir," writes the author, Christopher Beam.

The piece goes on to discuss different ways Asian American voters can enhance their influence -- all, of course, with drawbacks. But it's fascinating to see there's a nascent effort there. If it pays off, maybe in 2012 or 2016 the two presidential candidates will spend more time on their policies on Taiwan.

Obama Victory Won't End Racial Problems In The U.S., Says Jesse Jackson

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.

International Media: McCain Commits Two-Worded Gaffe, Obama Wins Debate

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.'"

Despite Similar Positions, McCain And Obama Weigh In On Taiwan Arms Deal In Different Ways

Taiwan hasn’t exactly been a priority for the presidential campaigns, and Taiwanese publications see no major difference between the two candidates – or President Bush – on the country. But where there is a difference, it can be illustrated thusly: John McCain’s campaign sent reporters a statement today calling on President Bush to add additional items to its sale of military goods to Taiwan, and Barack Obama’s campaign sent out no such statement. That jives with the general sentiment that McCain, for whatever reason, is more attentive to Taiwan than is Obama. Not that the Taiwanese population seems to notice, since they resoundingly back Obama, according to a Reader's Digest poll that also found, contrary to most polls here, that the United States favored McCain.

Now, that wasn’t the end of the story from the Obama campaign. It apparently responded to a Washington Post request for comment by simply saying that he supported the military agreement, but did not echo McCain’s call to include submarines and aircraft. And then they sent out to reporters that very Washington Post story, which, as it happens, focuses on the fact that a top McCain adviser until a few months ago lobbied on behalf of Taiwan.

Neither McCain’s statement on Taiwan or the Obama campaign’s emphasis of his possible motive is liable to have any impact on the campaign whatsoever. But it all falls under our bailiwick here, and it’s not been examined much of anywhere else. More importantly, the candidates’ positions could have ramifications for whichever candidate wins, since the military deal angered China so much that it canceled planned visits from its military officials to the United States.

Can McCain Make An Issue Out Of Foreign Donations For Obama?

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.

For The Next President: Al Qaeda, Foreign Lending And Plenty More

‘Tis the season for looking ahead to the challenges the next president will confront, and how John McCain and Barack Obama would approach those challenges. Michael directed you to the National Journal’s series, but everyone’s doing it, including Popular Mechanics, which has taken a look at the candidates’ positions on science and technology issues that includes their views of the Law of the Sea. (And here, they offered some fascinating technology/foreign policy questions for the candidates’ first debate that I missed. Popular Mechanics!)

I’m going to shill once more for my daytime employer on this front, because when Congressional Quarterly puts together a package like it did for its magazine this week, people need to see it. The package starts with CQ Weekly’s “11 Issues for the Next President.” The international angle on many of them is obvious: “War,” “U.S. Image,” “Military,” “Energy,” “Immigration” and “Intelligence,” the last of which I wrote and I’ll discuss more in a moment. But the “Infrastructure” piece, for instance, delves into investments in transportation in Europe; the “Deficit” piece explores foreign lending; and the “Economy” piece dips into international trade.

The package also has a fun feature at CQPolitics.com: “Cabinet Maker.” CQ reporters culled the best information they could to project possible Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and other Cabinet picks for McCain and Obama. The interactive tool makes it enjoyable, but there’s also a helpful explanation of some of the Cabinet candidates’ work experience and past positions.

In my piece on intelligence, I explore the status of al Qaeda, the ongoing restructuring of the national security apparatus, what kinds of attacks experts say the United States needs to better defend against and more. I found that national security agencies were undergoing “reform fatigue,” and that while many experts believe the next president should focus less on the proper structure and more on achievable results, those two things are necessarily intertwined. But I recommend reading the entire series under “related content” here, and using the Cabinet Maker feature.

Russia And Iran: Crucial Countries, Limited Options For Obama And McCain

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?

Palin, Around With Terrorists

Much of the focus on Sarah Palin’s remarks about Barack Obama “palling around with terrorists” has been on whether negative attacks work or not. The answer to that is: Sometimes. They do not appear to be helping Sen. Norm Coleman right now. On the other hand, it’s hard to deny that John McCain’s attacks on Obama, about him being a celebrity and that kind of thing, were having an effect on the polls. Ben Smith says the purpose of the new McCain/Palin attacks on Obama’s associations has more to do with raising broader questions about him than trying to tie him to a controversial figure, and that may be, too.

I think a whole ‘nother question, though, is whether the specific “terrorist” attack can work anymore. And that is one element of the Palin remarks. Accusing Democrats of being soft on terror – and it’s harder to be soft on terror than by “palling around” with a practitioner – worked well in 2002 and 2004. But in 2006, Republicans fell short when they accused Democrats of opposing surveillance on terrorists. And that has something to do with the changing nature of voters’ interests.

Another Twist In The Barack Obama-Great Britain Soap Opera Relationship

So much for the love affair between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown’s government in Great Britain, now that the a memo by U.K.’s ambassador to the United States criticizing the Democratic presidential candidate has been leaked to the Telegraph’s Toby Harnden. That’s probably an overstatement of the original condition; it’s been more an up-and-down thing, as detailed by British newspapers. But this won’t help relations, should Obama win.

Much of the coverage of the leaked document has focused on criticisms of Obama’s leadership style, personality and experience, where the ambassador, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, also offered some praise of Obama. But there were some substantial passages in the Obama memo detailing how Obama’s policies compare to Brown’s, too.

Among them:

--Conflict over Iran. "If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]'s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."

--Agreement over Iraq. "Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking."

--Common ground on climate change and larger security issues. The memo praised Obama’s “progressive position on climate change" as well as his “pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues."

--A lack of shared vision on trade and Middle East peace. “Sir Nigel concludes that searching for a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is ‘unlikely to be a top priority for Obama’ and he expresses concern about his protectionist trade policy, while noting that he has ‘repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade.’”

But in the end, Sir Nigel concluded that Obama is still evolving, and his record offers little to suggest where he might end up. “Although he has been a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for four years, and a regular attender of meetings in his first two, there is little Obama track record to refer back to."

Fact-Checks On The International Affairs Side Of The Vice Presidential Debate

The day after the vice-presidential debate, let’s review where the fact-checkers came down on what the candidates had to say on foreign policy. It wasn’t pretty out there.

--At Politifact, Sarah Palin gets a “barely true” for claiming Joe Biden had “supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race.” Biden gets a “half-true” for saying “John McCain voted against funding the troops because of . . . a timeline in it to draw down American troops.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on that natural gas pipeline and Biden’s statements about whether Barack Obama was ready to be commander in chief.
--At Washington Post’s Fact-Checker, Palin gets downgraded for claiming she was at the forefront of a movement in Alaska to divest in Sudan, when in fact her administration originally opposed legislation to do so; Biden gets downgraded for claimed that the United States and France had “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.” Also addressed: Palin remarks on Iraq, and Biden’s claims on Hamas.
--At Factcheck.org, Palin gets knocked for claiming that violence in Iraq had fallen to “pre-surge” levels, and Biden gets knocked for mis-characterizing McCain’s views about meeting with Spain’s president. Also addressed: Palin and Biden remarks on Afghanistan, Biden’s remarks on clean coal and Palin’s remarks on overseas sources of energy.

For more, here’s fact-checking at USA Today, The L.A. Times,
and the Associated Press.

International Media: Palin Better Than Could Be Expected In The Debate

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.

Quick Reaction To Palin's Performance On Foreign Policy

It'll be dissected here and elsewhere in the coming days, but here's my quick, unpolluted, pre-talking head take on Sarah Palin's performance on foreign policy, which we've discussed so much here this week:

She sidestepped many questions. In doing so, she delivered several memorable lines -- "white flag of surrender" -- that were better than making a mistake but not as good as answering competently. She also effectively exploited differences between Joe Biden and Barack Obama, on topics like funding for the troops. On that subject, whether Biden was wrong then and right now (my reading of the pertinent facts) is secondary; it undermines the credibility of Biden's current argument for him to have held the opposite position not so long ago. She made some errors, but nothing too shocking.

All in all? She did not fail terribly on foreign policy by any standard, let alone the low, low standard of the expectations she had set with some clumsy interviews. That was the least she had to do, and in my estimation, she accomplished that.

More Bad New For Palin On Foreign Policy Heading Into The Debate

The Associated Press just did the most comprehensive digging on Sarah Palin’s record of meeting with foreign officials yet, and came up with… not much.

Palin had said in an interview that she had been involved in “trade missions” with Russia, but the AP came up empty on that count. As it turns out, a gubernatorial spokeswoman had previously refused to even answer questions about the Russian “trade missions.” But the AP got a Russian Federation official to speak up, then another official who works for the governor.

In fact, the AP only found that she had ever had any substantial negotiations of any kind with one foreign country, that being Alaska’s other neighbor, Canada. Contrast that with Biden’s list, and it’s apparent what a daunting hole Palin will be fighting out of when Thursday night’s debate rolls around. Things beside experience – like judgment – matter when it comes to foreign policy. And yet, it’s hard to deny that Biden gets some kind of advantage from having met and talked with these foreign leaders in a way that Palin never has.

The good news here for Palin is that, in the expectations game candidates usually play, it would be hard for her to come in any lower. Maybe she demonstrates previously unrevealed savvy and ends up profiting from looking better than both opponents and advocates fear she might. Maybe, as well, Biden slips up in some way that makes whatever slip-ups she experiences pale in comparison. But, again, she is starting from a stunningly unequal footing with Biden on foreign policy.

Scary Song: Children's Musical Praise For Obama

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.

Realists And Neoconservatives Fight Over Sarah Palin

We recently wrote here about the battle for influence within the McCain campaign between neoconservatives and realists. How deep the rift and how intense the struggle between the two Republican camps is exemplified by an open letter to Sarah Palin by the editors of The American Conservative magazine.

The letter, dripping with disdain for John McCain and well-known neoconservative figures, in a sarcastic tone, lists the main foreign policy grievances realists have with George W. Bush and his neoconservative agenda. Here are a few of them:

Russia:
- Realists don't think the U.S. and Russia are headed for a repeat of the Cold War. They feel that Russia's behavior doesn't constitute a major threat to the U.S.
- "Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It's a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage."
- "Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been."

Middle East:
-"Israel's problem isn't external threat so much as internal security and demographics."
-"The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst — to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed."
-"The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict."

Iran:
-"Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them."
-"Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America."

Towards the end of the letter, the writers directly appeal to Sarah Palin to eschew the neoconservative agenda: "You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they'll tell you this alien vision — imported from the Left — is coherent and conservative."

Sure, The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, is not the official mouthpiece of realism. And some of the specific points made in the letter, i.e. the stance toward Israel, will be considered too extreme and won't be shared by other outlets with a realist bent. Nevertheless the main thrust of the letter provides an interesting insight into the fierce struggle that is waging within the Republican party. The outcome of this fight for the soul of the GOP will definitely have consequences for the future of the Republican party and possibly the world.

Bad Omen: Palin’s Foreign Policy Inexperience Not Making Many Fans, And It Gets Harder Thursday

Generally, Sarah Palin’s lack of national office experience has been catching her heat ever since she took the vice president slot for the GOP, but specifically, it is her lack of foreign policy experience that has drawn the most criticism. Her recent answers on that subject in interviews has really brought about an incredible amount of blowback from unexpected sources – and unless there are some miracle workers in the McCain camp, it’s just going to get worse after Thursday’s debate against foreign policy specialist Joe Biden.

The new criticism from the right is fairly well-documented. But some less partisan analysts have recently loosed their tongues upon Palin, too. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria called her comments about Russia vis-à-vis Alaska “gibberish,” said they were marked by “absurdity” and said John McCain’s pick of her betrayed that he did not, in this instance, put “country first.” My CQ colleague Jeff Stein offered: “It’s clear now, as if we needed more proof, that Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue about the world beyond the Bering Straight. Or if she does, she can’t express it.” The Associated Press revisited her Russia remarks, and came up with this: “A stumbling interview with CBS's Katie Couric last week in which Palin equated her state's proximity to Russia with foreign policy experience may have been her defining moment so far.”

Ouch. But that’s just dealing with Couric, who did a good job in the interview but was rather non-confrontational. What’s going to happen when she’s being asked even tougher questions, requiring even greater foreign policy knowledge, and for comparison’s sake, answers to the same questions come from the gaffe-prone, but encyclopedic, brain of Biden?

Maybe it's just that the focus on her mistakes is sharper because she's done so few interviews, as McCain surrogate Mitt Romney theorized. But if she falls short at the debate, it could get very rough from here on out. Here's how serious it is -- George Stephanopoulos of ABC goes so far as to say this: "A major mistake, particularly on foreign policy, would be absolutely fatal to her candidacy."

And The Winner Of The Financial Crisis Is…Europe?

The global financial turmoil produces many losers, but also some winners. With the American banking sector currently melting down, it is hardly surprising that some commentators view the U.S. as the biggest loser in this crisis. Frank Herold is one of them. In a guest editorial for Russia's RIA Novosti (in German), Herold, an editor with Berliner Zeitung, argues that as a result of the turmoil, there will be a realignment of the global power structure.

To be sure, Herold feels that it is premature to sing the swan song for the U.S., but he thinks the time of American global hegemony, at least for the foreseeable future, is over. Possible beneficiaries of the crumbling old world order, according to Herold, are China, but also Iran, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and the Taliban in Afghanistan. With the U.S. preoccupied with itself, who is supposed to keep Iran, Chavez and the Taliban in check, asks Herold.

But the most interesting aspect of Herold's analysis is that he proclaims Europe one of the major winners in the international power reshuffle: It doesn't matter who wins the election and becomes president, McCain or Obama. Whoever it is will have to seek common ground with Europe – and not with a particular European country - a position that George W. Bush felt was good enough - but with Europe as a supranational power, writes Herold.

Hence, Herold argues, after the failure of the Bush model, it is now the up to the Europeans, who rightfully have complained for a long time about American unilateralism and hubris, to confidently present their solutions for the global challenges the West is facing.

According to Herold, the financial crisis has brought the EU closer together and is in itself a convincing argument that the kind of integration the EU provides is necessary. Europe is back, writes Herold and warns that everyone who doesn't recognize that fact misjudges the signals of the current crisis. That goes for the U.S., but also Russia, who's foreign policy instincts, states Herold, were no less "American," than those of the U.S.

While Herold's analysis that the U.S. is weakened by the financial crisis sounds plausible, his deduction that therefore Europe is one of its biggest beneficiaries isn't. Politics isn't a zero-sum game. Just because, the U.S. loses some of its global stature doesn't necessarily translate into European gains. (Yesterday's historic election results of the CSU and the SPD in Bavaria proved that point.) If the EU's economic and foreign policy, as well as its structural fundamentals haven't changed - and they haven't - then why should Europe be in a better position now then a few weeks ago? What's more, the assumption that Europe, through this crisis, has become more cohesive, for the time being is just that – an assumption that hasn't been put to the test.

As far as the next U.S. president is concerned though, Herold is right. Whether it is Obama or McCain, he will have to seek common ground with Europe. Not necessarily because Europe is so much stronger than before, but because compared to all the other global players, Europe is simply the best option.

Flip-Flop Allegation: Obama On Missile Defense

The right is calling Barack Obama a flip-flopper after his statement during Friday night’s debate that “I actually believe we need missile defense.” The truth is a little more subtle than any charge of a flagrant flip-flop that took life that evening, but either way, Obama’s position has apparently shifted over time, and his current stance raises some questions.

At one point, anyway, it appeared that Obama opposed missile defense entirely. Back in 2001, he said, according to a quote from a television station that the John McCain campaign rustled up: “I, for example, don't agree with a missile defense system.” That’s the only quote from the interview I’ve been able to find – what he said before or after that, and in what context, is not readily available.

But for as far back as I can discern other than that remark, Obama has primarily taken a skeptical view of missile defense, not a “no way, no how” view of missile defense. Almost all of his statements have indicated he does not oppose missile defense in theory. But he has favored cutting spending on missile defense – “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” he said in February – and has opposed deployment of missile defense infrastructure in Europe until certain conditions are met. “The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles,” he said in July of last year when the Polish president visited. “If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes.”

Between those two statements lies the following question: Given the billions that have been spent on missile defense so far and that fact that the United States still has no working shield, how will cutting missile defense spending increase the chances of producing a system that works?

Kissinger, McCain, Obama And Iran

There were plenty of things to fact check from Friday evening’s presidential debate on foreign policy, but one where the fact-checkers seemed to come down in a couple different directions was Barack Obama’s claim about Henry Kissinger’s views on meeting with Iran.

My reading is that this Marc Ambinder breakdown has it right.

International Media On The Debate: McCain Seemed Like An Old Sheriff, Obama Like A Handsome Professor

So who won the debate, John McCain or Barack Obama? Neither of them is the answer, if you ask how the international media reacted to the first presidential debate, even though some political analysts give Obama a slight edge.

"A clear tie" headlines Germany's business magazine Wirtschaftswoche, and comments that both McCain and Obama came across surprisingly bland during the TV debate. One of the reasons for their rather dreary performance was that both wanted to avoid mistakes. The question which of them will be the next president remains open - although Obama is likely to benefit more from the financial crisis than his opponent, writes Wirtschaftswoche.

Poland's Rzeczpospolita (via dradio.de) argues along the same lines. Obama presented himself slightly better on economic issues, even though McCain gave a better answer to the question which concrete steps should be taken to solve the financial crisis: To freeze government spending with the exception of some key areas. But generally McCain and Obama talked as though the many dramatic events of the past few days simply hadn't happened. "McCain seemed like an old, experienced sheriff, Obama like a handsome university professor who is open for alternative views," says Rzeczpospolita.

"The debate only confirmed that both candidates can contribute nothing substantial to the discussion about the financial crisis," argues Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Both stuck to their old rhetoric, despite the fact that the crisis has thwarted their budget plans. Where foreign policy was concerned, McCain – as expected - managed to put his opponent on the defense. Repeatedly Obama was accused of being naive and inexperienced without being able to effectly counter the charges. But the Democratic nominee stuck it out and appeared presidential. Since there were no gaffes or big mishaps, the effect of the debate on the race will probably be negligable. This helps Obama who leads in the polls and has taken another hurdle on his path to the White House, writes the Swiss paper.

"McCain needed to win, but he couldn't pull it off," German communications expert Frank Brettschneider told DPA. Obama was well prepared and on foreign policy topics came across better than he had until now. McCain merely relied on characterizing Obama as inexperienced. "That is simply not good enough," said Brettschneider, who teaches at Hohenheim university near Stuttgart. All in all, Brettschneider saw the debate ending with a slight advantage for Obama.

Dutch communications specialist Eliane Schoonman agrees that Obama did better in the debate: Obama explained in great detail how the financial crisis has been created by the Republicans, how it affects the ordinary Americans and how he, Barack Obama, is going to solve the problem. McCain did better discussing the war in Iraq, casting himself as a war hero intent on winning, she told Dutch broadcaster RNW. So who won? As the debate mostly dealt with security, McCain's key issue, he should have won. Everything, though, points to a victory for Obama, who thus extends his lead over McCain, Schoonman was quoted by RNW.

So The Debate Is On, But Does It Matter?

After two days of uncertainty about the first presidential debate, John McCain finally said "Yes I can." So the event is on and we can all watch McCain and Barack Obama square off against each other on foreign policy, but probably even more on the financial crisis. Tim already laid out a way to do justice to both topics.

But the big question is: Do the debates even matter? Tom Holbrooke, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, argues in his blog (via scienceblogs.de) that debates usually don't have much influence in the outcome of the presidential election. His prediction for the current debate: "I don't expect to see large swings in candidate support following the individual debates, barring something really spectacular happening. However, even relatively small shifts in the same direction over the three debates could make this relatively tight race even tighter (if the shifts favor McCain), or could blow it open (if the shifts favor Obama)." Ross Barker, a political scientist at Rutgers, agrees that "debates aren't do or die".

Others disagree. Alan Schroeder, author of "Presidential Debates: 40 Years of High-Risk TV", told Bloomberg that the McCain-Obama debates are very different than previous debates and therefore may have a greater impact on the race. And Dan Balz in the Washington Post makes the case using historical examples, that debates are in fact "enormously important."

Who's right? We can all be the judge. Let's just wait, watch the debates, and see if there are major shifts in the polls afterwards.

Yet More International Affairs Debate Questions With An Economic Twist

It’s still up in the air, this foreign policy debate scheduled for Friday evening between presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, owing to McCain’s campaign-suspending maneuver in light of the economic crisis. Yesterday, I shared some questions from Council on Foreign Relations experts on foreign policy that could keep the candidates focused on the topic of the economy, if that’s the primary concern these days. Today, here are some more, from Foreign Policy:

--Should the United States continue its embargo against Cuba?
--Would you be willing to cut farm subsidies to allow the Doha Round of trade negotiations to proceed?
--Do you support the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, which would allow the United States to provide civil nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country that hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
--How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States’ growing economic interdependence with that country?

Also today, a liberal interest group distributed to my mailbox and others this interview with economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that the war in Iraq “broke the camel’s back” in making our economy worse – higher gas prices, a chain reaction by the Fed, the budget deficit the war exacerbated, etc. There are questions available to both candidates about how much they think the war affected the economy and what they’d do about it.

That I know the answer to some of the above questions (on India, both would answer “yes;” on Cuba, McCain would answer “no” and Obama would answer “just here and there,” a reversal of his previous position of "yes") is beside the point. The point is that there are plenty of joint foreign policy-economy-style questions available, and really, over the last two days, what I've passed along is just the tip of the iceberg.

Are Obama's German Roots Actually Swiss Roots?

Just before Barack Obama's visit to Berlin this summer, the German weekly Die Zeit reported via a press release and a follow-up article that the Democratic presidential candidate has German ancestors. According to the paper, Christian Gutknecht, Obama's grandfather six generations back emigrated with his wife from the Alsatian village of Bischweiler to the U.S. There, he changed his name to Goodknight and died in Germantown, Pennsylvania in 1795.

This is not Obama's only ancestral relation to Germany, reported Die Zeit. Another line dates back to 1616 and the German city of Heilbronn. According to the paper, after Kenian (50 percent) and English (37,7 percent) roots, Obama's German (4,68 percent) roots take third place in his ancestorial make-up.

But then yesterday, Swiss largest paper Blick said not so fast, and headlined an article on Obama's ancestry with the following: "Swiss blood runs through Obama's veins." The paper, refering to an interview by AFP with the archivist of Bischweiler, now Bischwilller, writes that Obama's ancestor Christian Gutknecht was probably a Swiss immigrant who had moved to Eschweiler. According to the archivist, Gutknecht had lived in a street in the Alsatian village that was built especially for Swiss immigrants. Many other Swiss outlets carried the story as well.

So is Obama more Swiss than German? And if so, does it matter? And what would that mean for his foreign policy positions via Germany and Switzerland? As soon as someone tackles these difficult issues, you can read about right here.

Economy Got You Down? Don't Worry, The Foreign Policy Debate Has It Covered

As of this writing, it’s completely unclear whether there will be a foreign policy-oriented presidential debate Friday night, as previously planned. But if economic woes are the predominant concern, there are plenty of questions for the candidates on the foreign policy front that have an economic angle.

At a Council on Foreign Relations event in Washington this week, a group of foreign policy experts offered up the following debate questions along those lines, per ABCNews.com:

--With the United States' power around the world largely built on its economic influence, how does the current U.S. financial market crisis affect U.S. power in the world?
--With the bailouts of Wall Street giants likely to increase the massive U.S. deficit and foreign entities buying up a large chuck of that debt, what do you see as some of the foreign policy consequences of foreign entities buying U.S. debt?
--What's the sustainability of foreign entities investing in the U.S. at a time when the U.S. markets seem to be in so much trouble?
--Do you think that climate change and energy issues should be treated as separate issues? If not, how are they related?

Of the 13 questions ABCNews.com conveyed, four had an economic angle, and they didn’t even get into international trade. And even if these specific questions aren’t asked, it’s hard to imagine that the economic angle on foreign policy won’t be explored. That is, if the debate happens at all.

Global Media Outlets Focus On Presidential Debates

The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain with its focus on foreign policy and national security is garnering huge international attention. For campaign aficionados anywhere in the world who don't mind getting up early, or staying up late, that is good news because you'll almost certainly can watch the debate live.

Here's a sampling of international media outlets that will carry the proceedings from the campus of the University of Mississippi:
-CNN International
-CNN Espanol
-BBC
-Telemundo
-France 24
-ARD
-ZDF

In addition, the Campaign on Presidential Debates (CPD) and Myspace.com have teamed up to create a special online platform, where users can watch a live stream of the debates, and also interact with each other. You can check it out here.

The First Debate Being On Foreign Policy Helps McCain… Correction, Obama

The two candidates began prepping Tuesday for their first debate later this week, on the topic of foreign policy. So clearly that favors John McCain, war veteran, long-time senator, Armed Services Committee guru, right? Except there’s a case to be made that it benefits Barack Obama, too.

The case for McCain is offered by the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, here. It goes: “The debate this Friday at Ole Miss presents McCain an opportunity to go on offense. While the nation is focused on its financial future, the two candidates will square off on foreign policy. If McCain has a comfort zone, this is it. The bombing at the U.S. embassy in Yemen on Sept. 17 and the massive hotel bombing in Pakistan on Sept. 20 -- both during the worst week in recent U.S. economic history -- are stark reminders of the dangerous world America inhabits. McCain could still retake control of the conversation.”

The case for Obama is offered by presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, at ABCNews.com. It goes: “As we saw last week Obama has a clear advantage on the economy issues, so if he can diffuse the national security issue, which has been Sen. McCain’s strong suit, then I think going into the home stretch he probably establishes a clear if small advantage overall.” In other words, better to get McCain’s strength out of the way sooner, so Obama can focus on his own strengths when it matters most – just before voters hit the polls.

Smith, it must be noted, offered the case for both Obama and McCain. Which goes to show how easy it is to see both interpretations as plausible.

Palin's Political Speed Dating Versus Obama's Whirlwind Tour

Barack Obama did Europe and the Middle East in a week to bolster his foreign policy credentials. Sarah Palin, in a political speed dating effort, will meet with nine international leaders in less than 30 hours without even leaving the U.S. Both Obama's whirlwind jet-setting tour and Palin's meet-and-greet with foreign leaders, show how serious a qualification international experience is for both campaigns.

Sure, Obama received some great media coverage and photo opportunties from his trip. Sarah Palin will also come out of those meetings with foreign leaders with at least some good shake-hands pictures.

But really, how much better equipped to deal with foreign policy are Obama and Palin after their respected ventures into global affairs? How much more do they know than they did before? Probably not that much. This is not to say that Obama's trip and Palin's New York meetings were in vain.

Let's just take them for what they are - highly choreographed efforts to showcase to voters and the media that the candidate is suited for the world stage. Neither Obama nor Palin are now all of a sudden foreign policy experts.

The Politicization And Depoliticization Of The Iran Rally

Both sides are casting blame on the other for the flap over whether Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and/or a representative of Barack Obama’s campaign would attend an anti-Iran rally in New York Monday. That’s fine, because there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Clinton was the original guest, but when organizers learned that Palin would be in New York around the date of the rally, they invited her, too. It is around here that the maneuvering began – liberal critics of inviting Palin saw political motives among organizers in boosting the John McCain-Palin ticket with Jewish voters (not to mention family ties between the two camps), and when Clinton abruptly pulled out of the event following Palin’s invitation, conservative critics savaged her for putting politics ahead of an important protest. The Obama campaign arranged to have a surrogate, Rep. Robert Wexler, attend. But by the time that happened, several liberal-leaning Jewish groups had begun a protest of Palin’s appearance, figuring she would outshine anyone from Obama's campaign other than her vice-presidential equivalent, Joe Biden, and Palin was out.

The fallout was swift. Some of the liberal-leaning groups were pleased when Palin was disinvited, a move the organizers said they were forced to make if they wanted the event to be devoid of politics. A local New York station reported that some unnamed Democrats threatened the organizers' tax exempt status if Palin spoke, infuriating the right. Said one of the groups involved about the whole mess: “Sen. Clinton’s appearance at a rally with Gov. Palin would have sent a strong message to Ahmadinejad and his cronies – that Americans understand the threat and stand together against it. Instead we have divided ourselves in front of it." Clearly the rally organizers did not consider all the ramifications of inviting a former Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican vice presidential candidate to their event in the stretch run of a heated campaign. But given how much Democrats have made this year about their confidence on foreign policy in this election, it is strange that Clinton didn't stay put or that the liberal-leaning groups didn't relent in their pressure to disinvite Palin once the Obama camp was prepared to send Wexler.

There really wasn’t any good way for this to end; once Palin was invited and Clinton pulled out, the rally was doomed to get wrapped up in the 2008 campaign, no matter what organizers did after that. Still, the rally drew thousands, according to news reports, even without Palin, Clinton or anyone else. It’s hard to believe the rally wouldn’t have been bigger had Palin and/or Clinton attended, but the publicity over the feud surely won it more attention than an anti-Iran rally might have gotten otherwise.

And if you get curious about what Palin and Clinton might have said, my old paper, The New York Sun, obtained the remarks they might have delivered. You can read them here and here.

Wall Street Shock Could Help Obama, If He Seizes His Chance, Say International Media

It doesn't look like the financial turmoil emanating from the U.S. is going away anytime soon. Instead the malaise that was triggered by the housing bubble in the U.S. has spread around the world. Obviously the meltdown on Wall Street will also have an impact on the presidential race. The blame game is already in full swing between Barack Obama and John McCain. Who's fault is the crisis anyway and who is better equipped to lead the world out of it, McCain or Obama, Democrats or Republicans?

And of course it is not just the U.S. media that play referee in the blame game. Global media outlets also have their take on whether McCain or Obama will be hurt by or benefit from the crisis. For an overview of international English-language opinion on the issue, check out the Nieman Watchdog.

There are however some interesting takes on the blame game that are not published in English, so here we go: "Monday, September 14, the day the American markets crashed, should mark a turning point in the election campaign", writes the French daily Liberation (via AFP). McCain in the end supported the plan to save AIG after having rejected it the previous day. McCain basically wants to continue the course of his predecessor, opines Liberation and adds: Government is not a dirty word for Obama. But so far the Democratic candidate couldn't convince voters that he is better suited to fulfill the expectations Americans have, writes the French paper and argues that the financial crisis is the best example for the price that must be paid for Republican laisser-faire policies.

According to Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Obama benefits from the turmoil on Wall Street even though he is no financial expert and his remarks on the situation were rather simplifying. But for a long time Obama has called for stronger oversight over financial markets, a demand that is hard to counter after recent events, writes the paper. Another advantage for Obama is the fact that the economy is now the dominant topic and that - righly or wrongly - voters feel that the Democrats are better equipped to deal with this issue.

The German weekly Die Zeit agrees: "Traditionally Democrats are considered to be the party that is better on economic policy." Until now, however, Obama has not been able to profit from this sentiment. He has not proven that he can emphasize with the worries of the man on the street as Bill Clinton did in his time. One of Obama's problems on the campaign trail has been that he appears intellectual and aloof. While the crisis on Wall Street is eating up the savings of working class, Obama should should lay out his remedy. But exactly on that point he has fallen short so far, opines Die Zeit and sums up: "The political environment favors Obama - but he must seize the opportunity."

Have Neocons Taken Over The McCain Campaign?

A few months ago, there were some news reports about the internal struggle within John McCain's campaign between realists/pragmatists and neoconservatives/idealists. Recent events, though, have led some commentators to conclude that the struggle’s over, and the neocons have won.

Three of these events happened in the past week. First, Henry Kissinger urged the next president to meet with the leader of Iran without preconditions, as Barack Obama had said he would do. This is the same Henry Kissinger who had been seen as one of the top realist advisers to McCain. Second, McCain apparently reversed a previous stance when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain, and one plausible explanation is that this was a deliberate slight because of his Iraq troop withdrawal. Third, neocon advisers have reportedly taken the lead in the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin.

It’s not just been this week, of course. As Michael wrote, one recent analysis is that hawks within McCain’s camp pushed him to take a harsher line against Russia. In fact, it’s hard to find many headlines McCain has made these days for any foreign policy position that might be categorized as realist.

ThinkProgress’s M. Duss wrote: “Hopefully, Kissinger’s statement will put to rest the idea that McCain’s foreign policy brain trust is divided between realists and neocons, which I’ve long argued is nonsense. McCain is a committed neoconservative, and has been for years.” Democracy Arsenal’s Adam Blickstein wrote: “McCain is not only an outlier, if he were part of the Bush administration, he would have already been marginalized and rendered irrelevant like the rest of the anachronistic and dangerous neocon cult.”

Granted, those two commentaries come from the left, which has an incentive to push the line that McCain is a neocon – not the most popular designation these days. But it’s worth wondering whether their basic argument right.

Obama Or McCain: Who Is Better For Germany, Canada And Europe?

One of our goals here at Across the Pond is to show how people outside the U.S. think about the presidential election and the candidates. Regular readers of this blog know of course that judging by opinion polls, the whole world clearly wants Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. So, case closed?

Not really. Polls, as every politician and every pollster will attest to, never tell the entire story. They are also not necessarily a good indicator of what is in the interest of the people participating in these surveys, as poll takers and voters don't always act rationally and choose the option that is in their or their country's best interest.

So when a leading German business magazine, a Canadian broadcaster and a Finnish EU parlamentarian asked whether John McCain or Barack Obama is better for Germany, Canada and the EU, we'll tell you about it right here.

Let's start with the German business magazine Capital, which headlines a lengthy piece (in German) on Obama and McCain, "Who is better for Germany?" According to Capital, it is not only Herr Müller or Frau Schmidt who prefer Obama over McCain, but also Germany's business leaders: Two-thirds of them, says a Capital survey, want Obama as the next president because they think the Democratic candidate would be better for Germany.

But they are wrong, conclude the authors of the Capital article. With one possible exception – climate change – a president McCain would be better for Germany on every business-related issue, i.e., free trade, subsidies, currency policy. And even on climate change, Obama is not the clear favorite since his plan for the 'greening' of U.S. automakers will be achieved through subsides for American companies like General Motors and Ford. This, says Capital, will hurt German automakers.

When it comes to free trade, Obama wants to renegotiate current trade agreements. What's more, writes Capital, the Democrats are not particularly fond of foreign companies. "There are repeated efforts to increase our taxes," Capital quotes an unnamed U.S. head of a major German company. "Almost always they are brought on by Democrats."

On foreign policy, Obama is pretty much a blank slate, while McCain knows Europe and is also well known there, argues Capital. McCain is a regular at Munich's Security Conference and his advisor for transatlantic relations, Richard Burt, was ambassador to Germany from 1985 to 1989. However, there is some anxiety in German business circles about McCain's hard-line approach toward Russia. While McCain wants Russia thrown out of the G8, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce warn against isolating Russia.

In sum, writes Capital, an Obama victory in November would lead to dissappointment, and not only where matters of international business are concerned. Many Germans have not gotten the message that - like McCain - Obama will push for a greater international role for Germany, e.g., more German troops and money for Afghanistan. "Under Obama, there will be more complications in transatlantic relations than many people expect," the magazine quotes Eberhard Sandschneider, Director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Interestingly, an article by Canada's CTV, asks "Who would be the best for Canada: McCain or Obama?" and comes to similar conclusions: "On pocketbook issues, the sensible thing to do would be to hope for a McCain presidency," CTV quotes Greg Anderson, a U.S. foreign policy expert at the University of Alberta. On national security, however, it's a different picture. A dove is better than a hawk, Stephen Clarkson, a professor of political economy at the University of Toronto specializing in Canada-U.S. relations told CTV. But in the end, pragmatism reigns. Canadian experts quoted by CTV agree: "You work with whoever's there."

Pragmatic is also a word that comes to mind when reading Anneli Jäätteenmäki's analysis in the Helsinki Times, which also questions which of the two presidential candidates is better for Europe.

Jäätteenmäki, a Finnish Member of the European Parliament for the Centre Party, puts it this way: "What we all must realize is that both candidates recognize that American foreign policy must change. They both want to move away from the unilateralism of the Bush administration towards a more multilateral approach. I believe that this change will be good for both the United States and Europe." In a nutshell: "Either way, Europe is better off."

McCain Maims Spain In Name Game

It’s hard to get at what John McCain was thinking this week, precisely, when he refused to say he would meet with the president of Spain if elected. That’s because none of the explanations – three of which are speculative and one of which is official – entirely make sense.

Explanation #1: McCain didn’t know whom the interviewer was talking about. This is the most embarrassing possible outcome, because it puts it in the gaffe territory, and it’s not very flattering to McCain’s argument that he’s the one with all the foreign policy experience. McCain answered the question with references to “Mexico,” the “hemisphere,” “Latin America” and “the region,” and when the interviewer specified that the question was about “Europe,” McCain answered, “What about me, what?” as though he was confused, then went back to speaking very generally about his policy. On the other hand, McCain has spoken about Jose Luis Zapatero before, so why would he suddenly not know who he was? Which brings us to…

Explanation #2: McCain didn’t understand what the interviewer was saying, through no fault of his own. Of all the explanations, this seems to be the one that even liberal types have been offering most generously. The interviewer, they say, spoke with a very think accent. (Alternately, McCain was having a “senior moment” – not that such a moment is a good thing.) The problem with this one is that McCain’s foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has explicitly stated that McCain did understand the interviewer. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but if it’s not, it does mean that the McCain camp would be lying instead of taking the answer that would cause the least controversy. But maybe they have a reason for wanting it to be known that he understood. Which brings us to…

Explanation #3: McCain intended to slight Zapatero. Relations between President Bush and Spain have been cold ever since Zapatero pulled troops out of Iraq shortly after winning election in 2004. McCain could be in the same camp. The problem with that is, back in April, McCain didn’t seem to be. He spoke in a very conciliatory manner in a spring interview: “I would like for [President Zapatero] to visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain but in obtaining good and productive relations with the goal of addressing many issues and challenges that we have to confront together.” Nothing major has happened in U.S.-Spain relations since April that has been made public, so that means that any change would have had to come as a result of a mysterious internal shift within the McCain camp. So what does the McCain camp say?…

Explanation #4: McCain was just keeping his options open, as a matter of policy. The official explanation, from Scheunemann: “If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open…” Few problems there. First, the interviewer didn’t ask for those specifics. Second, in the same interview, McCain implied he welcomed the idea of meeting with Mexico’s president. “I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion. And by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very tough fight against the drug cartels,” he said. Finally, it also doesn’t square with McCain’s April implication that he would like to meet with Zapatero, unless McCain just wanted to have Zapatero come to America and not meet with him, for some reason.

Where Do Obama And McCain Stand On Russia?

We have parsed and analyzed John McCain's and Barack Obama's reactions and stance vis-à-vis Russia and Georgia here at Across the Pond, while the military conflict between both states was taking place. But more often than not, after the dust settles and other topics make their way onto the agenda, journalists often neglect to follow up with a sober after-the-fact analysis of events. Even we are not blameless in this regard.

But sometimes when the media fail, academia comes to the rescue. In our case, it comes in the form of the Hungarian think tank Budapest Analyses, which has just released (via GMF) its take on the presidential candidates' stances on Russia. Here are a few nuggets from the BA's brief on McCain and Obama:

-John McCain reiterated his tough stance toward Russia, which is even more hard-line than President George W. Bush's.
-John McCain, as president, would carry on with President Bush's 'Democracy Project' where Russia and its neighbors are concerned.
-John McCain is "instinctively prone to shoot from the hip; second, he harbors deep personal enmities against Vladimir Putin; and third, his foreign policy advisers are a mix of Realpolitik practitioners and neo-conservatives."
-John McCain's neo-conservative advisers are pushing him toward a more hawkish stance toward Russia.
-John McCain is a staunch supporter of the planned anti-missile batteries in Poland (and the radar systems in the Czech Republic) and feels that they might be serving as a hedge against potential threats from Russia and China.

-"Barack Obama remained relatively aloof during the conflict and did not go beyond calling for vigorous diplomatic actions to reach a political solution."
-Barack Obama's Hawaiian vacation during the conflict doesn't explain his lackluster response on the issue.
-Barack Obama's only issued "one mildly directly critical comment about Moscow's behavior in the conflict," namely that genuine peacekeeping forces should be deployed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
-Barack Obama's brief statement during the conflict "implied that he did not consider the conflict as so serious a step by Russia that would necessitate a strong American response."
-Barack Obama and his team, in classical Realpolitik fashion, think the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on a host of issues.
-Barack Obama and "his foreign policy team - among others Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Gregory Craig - are skeptical about the wisdom of deploying the anti-missile batteries in Poland; that is, "provoking" the Russians unnecessarily."
-Barack Obama, however, has to convey that he is not "soft" on national security and has tried to position himself in the tradition of FDR and JFK as someone who can "blend foreign policy with moral considerations".
-Barack Obama himself has talked about a new type of leadership so much that "a conventional Realpolitik would be a big disappointment for a lot of his supporters."

To read the detailed analysis click here.

The India Nuclear Deal And The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (Part II)

(As Congress considers voting on a civilian nuclear deal with India in the very near future, now is as good a time as any to evaluate where the two presidential candidates have stood on the issue, and how it could play politically. This is the second of two parts, which focuses on the latter; the first part, which focuses on the former, can be read here.)

Both candidates bring up their support for the India nuclear deal when addressing Indian American -- sometimes called Asian Indian -- voters. Extensive data on the actual voting patterns of Indian Americans proved more difficult to find than I expected; they tend to get grouped in with other Asians, and considering that views on the Indian nuclear deal would surely vary between Chinese Americans, Indian Americans and Pakistani Americans, Asian American figures are useless here.

Estimates vary because their population is exploding, but according to the 2007 U.S. Census, there are 2.5 million Indian Americans in the U.S. Over the past couple elections, they have appeared to vote strongly Democratic; one estimate had them registered at 60 percent, while a poll from before the 2004 election had them strongly favoring John Kerry. Per this study, they don’t tend to vote as often as the general populace, although there is some evidence that they have increased those numbers of late. There does seem to be an anecdotal surge of young Indian Americans who are inclined toward Barack Obama. The reasons for the trend toward Democrats, according to a journalist who frequently reports on them: “If I had to theorize… I'd say it relates directly to a.) the geographical location of the community in more blue stats [sic] (like NJ, NY, and California) b.) how a President handles foreign policy in South Asia, c.) how religious/Christian the Republican rhetoric is at the time, and d.) the fact that most Indian Americans don't arrive wealthy - it's a slow climb to the top.” Because, as the U.S. India Political Action Committee notes, many Indian Americans are wealthy, they exert influence in campaign donations. They raised $5 million for Democrats in 2004 and $1.5 million for Republicans, according to a piece in the L.A. Times.

However, Republicans have been making a play for this group of voters. One evaluation of the voting group in 2006 estimated that pro-India policies championed by George Bush had helped pull some Indian Americans into the GOP column. Many Indian Americans favor conservative family values. Some of the wealthier among them might be inclined toward tax policies that do not target the rich, and resentful of negativity from some Democratic candidates toward outsourcing that has benefited India. And Indian American Bobby Jindal won election as Republican governor of Louisiana with nearly 90 percent of the vote from the group.

There is contrasting information on whether the nuclear deal is a big deal to Indian American voters. The LA Times story I linked above shows that Indian Americans mobilized to support the deal in 2006 and help push it through, despite other political barriers to doing so. An official with USINPAC said that for Indian Americans who voted in 2006, “the Indian nuclear energy deal was right up there with green cards and visas” as top issues. On the other hand, a focus group convened by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future found that, among its sample, there was greater interest in this election in issues of concern to all voters, from the economy to Iraq.

While there are a decent number of Indian Americans in swing states Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, because American businesses might benefit from increased trade, there’s a broader economic argument to the India deal, too. It’s not something either candidate spends much time on the trail talking about, but if the deal comes before Congress next week, it wouldn’t be surprising to see either of them touting –- a little bit, anyway –- the economic benefits of the deal and jostling for position about who supported it most.

Palin Invites Media and Voters To Grill Her On Foreign Policy Details

In her first town hall meeting with John McCain, Sarah Palin was asked to address her perceived lack of foreign policy experience by giving specifics how she is prepared to deal with global affairs. Instead of providing specifics, Palin offered generalities, as Scott Conroy points out in From the Road. Palin, as any other candidate, is free to answer or not answer any questions. And it is also Palin's prerogative to let McCain speak about her foreign policy credentials in the town hall meeting, and let her spokesman provide details relating to her foreign policy experience at a later date.

That approach, however, won't work long term because it won't satisfy questions voters and the media have about her record. But, as has been reported here and elsewhere, the foreign policy education of Sarah Palin is still ongoing, and perhaps as the Alaska Governor said herself, the goal is not to be ready today, but to be ready come January 20, 2009.

Considering Palin's reluctance to address foreign policy issues at this point, the Republican vice presidential candidate went out on a limb, which she may live to regret, writes Mosheh Oinounou at Fox News Embeds. At the town hall meeting in Michigan, Palin issued the following challenge: "I have that readiness, and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries, go ahead you can ask me to play stump the candidate if you want to."

What will Palin's dare mean for the campaign? "While Palin's offer of stump the candidate was partially meant in jest, media already eager to trip up the Alaska Governor on her perceived weakness now have even more incentive to — if ever accorded the opportunity to ask questions," writes Oinounou, adding that the last candidate to issue such a dare was Gary Hart. He ultimately lost that challenge.

But even more intriguing is the question why Palin even made such a challenge? It is a challenge that is her's to lose. One must only ask a fairly specific foreign question and pretty much every politician - whether veteran foreign policy official or novice candidate - will fail. What's more, to prove that one can memorize foreign ministers and capitals doesn't necessarily convey foreign policy experience, but rather good memory skills.

In a nutshell: By issuing such a challenge, Palin or any other politician, is in a no-win situation. If she answers a question correctly, it doesnt improve her foreign policy standing. If she makes a gaffe, it confirms her critics' perception that she is clueless on foreign policy. So why did she do it? What do you think?

As Americans Discover Palinmania, Brazilians Give New Meaning To Obamamania

After reporting numerous times about Barack Obama's popularity in Germany, Europe and the world, we here at Across the Pond thought we had Obamamania covered inside out and had pretty much considered that part of the election saga closed. We were wrong. We still managed to ignore reports coming out of Canada that it had been struck by a severe case of Obamamania.

But what is being reported now out of Brazil by the Guardian (via the Drudge Report) redefines the entire concept of admiration and adoration for Barack Obama the world has seen heretofore.

According to the Guardian, at least six Brazilian politicians have renamed themselves after the Democratic candidate hoping to be more attractive for voters. But it doesn't end with the name change. Change is also what one of the Brazilian Obamas, a man formerly know as Claudio Henrique dos Anjos, wants to bring Belford Rexo, a city on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro: "I say the same things. I talk about political renewal, change, about transforming the city."

While people were renaming themselves after Obama in Brazil, a totally different phenomenon is sweeping the U.S., as media outlets as diverse as Marie Claire and ABC News are reporting: Palinmania. For better or worse, so far no name changes to Palin have surfaced by admirers of John McCain's running mate. And so far, as the Daily Telegraph notes, Palinmania has been slow to cross the Atlantic. We'll keep you posted should that change.

The India Nuclear Deal And The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election (Part I)

Revisiting Palin's ABC Interview And Her Take On World Issues

I thought I’d missed my chance at commenting on Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson last week, but since others are still dissecting it, there’s no reason not to analyze what she said on our little slice of the blogosphere, foreign policy in the 2008 presidential race. Let’s try to do a little refereeing.

--Vice presidents. Palin was just plain wrong when she answered the question about whether she’d met with foreign leaders thusly: “I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.” CBS found that you’d have to go back to Spiro Agnew to find even a vice president who likely had not met with a foreign leader prior to taking on the job of running mate.
--Bush doctrine. This piece in The Australian Monday may have been overly generous in giving Palin credit for “perfect nuance” on foreign policy, but it’s right about one thing: Different people mean different things by “Bush doctrine,” so Palin probably wouldn’t have been alone in wanting to clarify. That said, her answer betrayed a lack of familiarity with any single version of the “Bush doctrine.”
--Global warming. When she said that she believed mankind “can be contributing” to climate change, it was not a flip-flop. She has said in the past: “I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.” Each of those statements sounds at odds, and maybe they are meant to lead the listener down one direction or the other toward what she wants people to think she believes. Her position can be summarized thusly: “I’m not saying it’s man-made, but it might be.” It’s roughly equivalent to the view of an agnostic: “I’m not saying there’s a God, but there might be.” I think the more relevant question than whether she flip-flopped is whether there’s enough science to suggest more than mere “potential” for man-made global warming.
--Russia. It is true that if NATO accepted Georgia into its ranks and Russia attacked it, the U.S. “perhaps” could find itself in war with Russia, as Palin said. It’s actually the whole idea – if one NATO ally is attacked, the concept goes, the whole of NATO is attacked and must respond as such. But you won’t find many candidates who would have answered the hypothetical that way, for fear of being provocative. And was the Russia attack on Georgia “unprovoked,” as Palin said? Russia had made it pretty clear that they were agitated by Georgia’s actions in South Ossetia but Georgia continued along the path it did. “Provoked” and “justifiable” aren’t necessarily the same thing. Some would argue that Russia was indeed provoked, whether it was right to attack Georgia or not.
--Pakistan. Palin effectively endorsed Barack Obama’s position on going after terrorists in Pakistan without that country’s permission, a position John McCain has rejected, when she said, “I believe America has to exercise all options.”

Is Bush Following Obama On Foreign Policy, Or Is Obama Following McCain?

In this space of late, I've emphasized the ways in which President Bush's foreign policy has come to resemble Barack Obama's: On Iraq, on meeting with controversial foreign leaders, and most recently, on conducting operations inside Pakistan without its permission to go after al Qaeda.

The Weekly Standard offers up a different case: That Obama is actually following John McCain's lead. And on most of the examples the conservative magazine offers, there is truth in them. On the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on Russia's invasion of Georgia and other topics, Obama over time shifted toward McCain.

Both cases, stated at their lowest common denominator, are true. Bush has shifted toward Obama, in some situations. Obama has shifted toward McCain, in some situations.

There's a kind of three-way game of chase going on here, where each of two candidates and the one president alternately distances himself from and moves closer to one or both of the others.