| 31.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 29.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 25.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 19.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 18.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 16.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 13.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 08.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 05.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 03.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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.” |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 02.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 01.12.2008 |
|
||||||||
| 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. |
||||||||
|
||||||||