| 30.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 28.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 27.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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?" |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 26.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 23.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 22.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 20.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 17.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 15.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 14.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 12.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 11.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.” |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 10.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 09.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 07.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 06.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 04.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.” |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||