The reelection
of Barack Obama confirms a shift in American strategic culture and has served
to highlight deep and meaningful demographic and ideological transformations in
the American electorate and in its foreign political preferences.
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Monday, November 19, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
GUANTANAMO, ABSENT IN THE ELECTORAL DEBATE (LIBÉRATION)
Wikileaks recently published new documents giving further detail about the American presence at Guantanamo, but the topic has remained outside of the central electoral debate in the US.
Libération takes a look at why the prison at Guantanamo has not been closed (despite Obama's promise), the reasons it does not figure among the American public's top priorities, and why both Obama and Romney are reluctant to make it an electoral message.
I am pleased to figure among the specialists interviewed in the article.
Read: Guantanamo, la grande absente du débat américain (Libération)
Libération takes a look at why the prison at Guantanamo has not been closed (despite Obama's promise), the reasons it does not figure among the American public's top priorities, and why both Obama and Romney are reluctant to make it an electoral message.
I am pleased to figure among the specialists interviewed in the article.
Read: Guantanamo, la grande absente du débat américain (Libération)
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
TWO WEEKS FROM ELECTION DAY: DEBATING THE LAST WEEKS OF A VERY TIGHT RACE (FRANCE 24)
Also on the panel were Philip Golub, Stuart Haugen and Anne Kraatz.
Video (in French) after the jump.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
OBAMA MAINTAINS FOREIGN POLICY ADVANTAGE, BUT ROMNEY ISN'T OUT YET (LE MONDE)
Over at Le Monde, I contributed an op-ed this morning with a rundown of last night's final debate between Obama and Romney, largely hailed by voters as a victory for the president.
In a debate remarkable in the virulence of the attacks leveraged, the scope of topics was surprisingly narrow, and most of the candidates' arguments were retread from various campaign speeches and events.
The big question of the night was leadership. The president accused his Republican rival of poor judgment, a man dangerously subscribing to the values and frameworks of a by-gone era. For his part, Romney condemned the president's weak global leadership, an "apology tour" that has seen the US' enemies empowered (Iran) and its allies cast aside (Israel). For all of their differences in world vision, Romney did agree with Obama on a number of issues (use of drones), in some cases making only minor distinctions (would have asked Mubarak to step down, but earlier). Perhaps a smart tactical move for a candidate hoping to pick up centrist and undecided voters...
Romney did not disqualify himself from the commander-in-chief test. The president was aggressive, and while supporters may celebrate the bite in his repeated attacks against Romney, it is unclear if voters will agree - or rather see it as unbecoming and evidence of a struggling candidate. Likewise, will voters sign on for Mitt Romney's calls for more defense spending and a more robust US presence in the world in a time of budgetary constraint and reduced ambition in American public opinion?
Foreign policy remains a secondary issue in the 2012 elections. Will Obama transform last night's performance into a second wind of electoral momentum? Or will Romney's cool showing be enough to convince voters to make a change?
Click here to read the full text (in French) via Le Monde
In a debate remarkable in the virulence of the attacks leveraged, the scope of topics was surprisingly narrow, and most of the candidates' arguments were retread from various campaign speeches and events.
The big question of the night was leadership. The president accused his Republican rival of poor judgment, a man dangerously subscribing to the values and frameworks of a by-gone era. For his part, Romney condemned the president's weak global leadership, an "apology tour" that has seen the US' enemies empowered (Iran) and its allies cast aside (Israel). For all of their differences in world vision, Romney did agree with Obama on a number of issues (use of drones), in some cases making only minor distinctions (would have asked Mubarak to step down, but earlier). Perhaps a smart tactical move for a candidate hoping to pick up centrist and undecided voters...
Romney did not disqualify himself from the commander-in-chief test. The president was aggressive, and while supporters may celebrate the bite in his repeated attacks against Romney, it is unclear if voters will agree - or rather see it as unbecoming and evidence of a struggling candidate. Likewise, will voters sign on for Mitt Romney's calls for more defense spending and a more robust US presence in the world in a time of budgetary constraint and reduced ambition in American public opinion?
Foreign policy remains a secondary issue in the 2012 elections. Will Obama transform last night's performance into a second wind of electoral momentum? Or will Romney's cool showing be enough to convince voters to make a change?
Click here to read the full text (in French) via Le Monde
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
CAPITAL BRIEF - POST-CONVENTION(S) STATE OF THE RACE
Here is the ninth issue of Capital Brief, from September 12, analyzing the presidential race dynamics following the two major party conventions and Romney's response to Libya and Egypt.
Click below to read the Brief.
Click below to read the Brief.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
CAPITAL BRIEF - LOOKING AHEAD TO ROMNEY'S TOUR OF EUROPE, ISRAEL
Here is the seventh issue of Capital Brief, from July 24, analyzing Mitt Romney's (still vague) defense policy proposals and their consequences.
Click below to read the Brief.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
EARLY INSIGHT INTO A ROMNEY FOREIGN POLICY
As the US presidential elections move into the summer, we can already begin to trace broad lines of what a Mitt Romney foreign policy might look like.
Here are some initial impressions:
- Romney is not an ideologue, but has made space in his foreign policy/national security team for neoconservatives (including John Bolton, who many expect would be given an important position in a Romney administration). Romney also counts the advice of other prominent neoconservatives like Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy Institute, for example.
- His worldview often invokes Cold War paradigms and Bush-era Manicheaism. He considers Russia to be a chief threat to the US (and reproaches the reset), warns of the challenges posed by China (without giving much attention to the opportunities), has suggested the possibility of military action against Iran, and advocates a global posture that ensures the domination and supremacy of US values and its model throughout the world. Romney regularly uses language hailing an "American century" and "American exceptionalism."
But we can wonder how much of this discourse is to accomodate the electoral context, and what touches on his core values.
- Romney talks about increasing defense spending (to 4% of GDP) and strengthening the American national security apparatus, without clearly specifying why or how to do so in the very restricted current budgetary climate.
- Mitt Romney is a hawk on Israel. The former governor of Massachusetts has, for decades, shared ties to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, though they are not said to be personally close. At different moments during the campaign, Romney has received personal briefings from Netanyahu, and Romney has adopted a tone that would show his intent to become closer to the Israeli leader. In addition to planning a foreign policy trip to Israel at the end of July, he has also promised to do "the exact opposite" of Obama in the Middle East, including renouncing the 1967 borders.
- On Syria, Romney has called to join together with international partners to support the opposition to Bashar al-Assad without going so far as to support the airstrikes called for by fellow Republican John McCain.
- If elected, Romney would be quickly confronted by limits imposed on him by both the American people and warring currents within his own party. Most Americans (and a majority of conservative voters) oppose new military endeavors. They are skeptical of any American-led armed entrepreneurship in world affairs, preferring policies that allow for nation-building at home. Any tendency Romney might have to be active in democracy-promotion or in engaging the US military on a new front would be met with fierce opposition from the public.
Within the Republican Party, too, there is an ongoing debate between several currents of international involvement, ranging from neoconservatism to neo-isolationism and something in-between. As diverse as the differences between Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul, or John McCain and Jon Huntsman. For the moment, no one current dominates Republican decision-making.
For further reading on Romney's foreign policy team:
Friday, May 4, 2012
DEBATING THE 2012 ELECTION/US FOREIGN POLICY (LE GRAND DEBAT, AFRICA 1)
After a month of non-stop travel, Potusphere is back!
Yesterday, I was a guest on Radio Africa N°1's Le Grand Débat hosted by Francis Laloupo. Also participating were Jim Cohen, Paris 3; Emmanuel Dupuy, Strategy Consultant; and Pierre Toullec, President of France Friends of the GOP.
The debate was dedicated to the upcoming US elections, now a mere 6 months away. It is still a wide-open contest, with many most recent polls indicating Obama and Romney in a statistical tie, including in some key swing states.
During the 90-minute debate, we touched on a wide range of topics, both domestic and foreign - from the impact of Obama's financial bailout and health care reforms, to the ongoing central importance of the economy in this presidential race and its weight on the American people.
We highlighted the Republican primary field and assessed the brand of conservatism promoted by the all-but-official nominee Mitt Romney, while also addressing the seriousness of his candidacy...Not to forget about the discussion of the social and demographic changes afoot in the US (the emergence of the Millennial generation and its consequences on US politics and leadership).
There was also a short exchange about Obama's foreign policy. I made a few points:
Click here to listen to the full audio (in French) at Radio Africa N°1
Yesterday, I was a guest on Radio Africa N°1's Le Grand Débat hosted by Francis Laloupo. Also participating were Jim Cohen, Paris 3; Emmanuel Dupuy, Strategy Consultant; and Pierre Toullec, President of France Friends of the GOP.
The debate was dedicated to the upcoming US elections, now a mere 6 months away. It is still a wide-open contest, with many most recent polls indicating Obama and Romney in a statistical tie, including in some key swing states.
During the 90-minute debate, we touched on a wide range of topics, both domestic and foreign - from the impact of Obama's financial bailout and health care reforms, to the ongoing central importance of the economy in this presidential race and its weight on the American people.
We highlighted the Republican primary field and assessed the brand of conservatism promoted by the all-but-official nominee Mitt Romney, while also addressing the seriousness of his candidacy...Not to forget about the discussion of the social and demographic changes afoot in the US (the emergence of the Millennial generation and its consequences on US politics and leadership).
There was also a short exchange about Obama's foreign policy. I made a few points:
- Obama presided over a drastic reduction of widespread anti-Americanism that characterized the preceding 8 years by first setting a new tone early in his administration (2009 speech in Cairo) and then successfully deploying a top foreign policy team (led by Hillary Clinton among others) to steadily rebuild the ties with foreign leaders and people.
- The president has chosen to undertake an intelligent reorientation of American foreign policy to accompany the rise of emerging power zones while working to place the US at the epicenter of geopolitical deal- and decision-making and maintain its influence and power of persuasion throughout the world.
- The impact of some of Obama's decisions might seem ambiguous, and their results not necessarily felt over the course of one or two news cycles. He errs on the side of patience and caution (to a fault, some say), seeking to act to maintain a balance between long-term pursuits and short- and medium-term results.
Click here to listen to the full audio (in French) at Radio Africa N°1
Monday, March 5, 2012
OBAMA @ AIPAC / McCAIN ON SYRIA
On March 4, President Obama delivered remarks before the annual AIPAC conference held in Washington. Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met behind closed doors in the Oval Office today.
Obama's speech reaffirmed America's - and his own - solidarity with Israel, Israel's right to sovereign action, and lamented the excessive "loose talk of war." Calling for more time to let sanctions work (citing Europe's new round of sanctions set to take effect in July 2012), Obama highlighted his administration's effort to build an international coalition to place diplomatic, political, and economic pressure on Iran.
While reassuring Israeli leaders that his policy was not one of containment, Obama argued that it is important for Iran to decide its own fate, citing examples of countries that independently renounce nuclear without a motivating military imperative...
While Obama was busy trying to calm rising tensions over the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran - in part citing Iran's growing regional unpopularity and the diminishing influence of Tehran and its ally Syria - Senator John McCain took the Senate floor and called on the US to lead an international effort to bomb Syria and precipitate the fall of Bashar al Assad's regime.
Although the administration has used strong language to condemn the violence and call for Assad to step down, it has opted for prudence regarding the arming of the opposition forces. Absent a clear understanding of who the opposition are, what they want, and how they hope to achieve it, the administration has chosen caution - caution to avoid sparking a civil war, the use of chemical weapons, or a regional arms race.
On the other hand, American conservatives have long called for action to arm the opposition and put an end to the bloodshed. McCain's comments today represent the first time an American leader has publicly advocated US-led bombing.
Read both mens' remarks here:
President Obama's 2012 AIPAC Address
Senator John McCain's Remarks on Syria on the Senate Floor
Obama's speech reaffirmed America's - and his own - solidarity with Israel, Israel's right to sovereign action, and lamented the excessive "loose talk of war." Calling for more time to let sanctions work (citing Europe's new round of sanctions set to take effect in July 2012), Obama highlighted his administration's effort to build an international coalition to place diplomatic, political, and economic pressure on Iran.
While reassuring Israeli leaders that his policy was not one of containment, Obama argued that it is important for Iran to decide its own fate, citing examples of countries that independently renounce nuclear without a motivating military imperative...
While Obama was busy trying to calm rising tensions over the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran - in part citing Iran's growing regional unpopularity and the diminishing influence of Tehran and its ally Syria - Senator John McCain took the Senate floor and called on the US to lead an international effort to bomb Syria and precipitate the fall of Bashar al Assad's regime.
Although the administration has used strong language to condemn the violence and call for Assad to step down, it has opted for prudence regarding the arming of the opposition forces. Absent a clear understanding of who the opposition are, what they want, and how they hope to achieve it, the administration has chosen caution - caution to avoid sparking a civil war, the use of chemical weapons, or a regional arms race.
On the other hand, American conservatives have long called for action to arm the opposition and put an end to the bloodshed. McCain's comments today represent the first time an American leader has publicly advocated US-led bombing.
Read both mens' remarks here:
President Obama's 2012 AIPAC Address
Senator John McCain's Remarks on Syria on the Senate Floor
Friday, February 24, 2012
SLAUGHTER'S PATH AHEAD IN SYRIA
In light of today's meeting in Tunis of the Friends of Syria, Anne-Marie Slaughter (former director of policy planning at the State Department and current professor at Princeton) has published an editorial in the New York Times proposing a plan of action to end the violence in Syria.Slaughter advocates foreign military intervention. Simply arming the opposition forces would, in her opinion, create conditions for a larger regional proxy war that could open the door to an Al Qaeda presence in Syria and access to biological and chemical weapons.
Instead, she proposes the creation of "no-kill zones" near the Turkish, Lebanese and Jordanian borders managed by "already active cilian committees"; no-kill zones that would serve as "short humanitarian corridors" to allow for the passage of food and medical supplies as well as wounded patients.
In Slaughter's words, "these zones would require nations like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to arm the opposition soldiers with anti-tank, countersniper and portable antiaircraft weapons" to be used defensively in order to stop attacks by Syrian military or other government forces. The aforementioned countries, and even European nations like France and Great Britain, could be called on to provide tactical and strategic advice.
Finally, Slaughter calls on Turkey and the Arab League to take a more active role in aiding Syrian opposition forces and insists that the international community should take no action "without the approval and the invitation of the countries in the region."
For Anne-Marie Slaughter, "The international community can draw on the power of nonviolence and create zones of peace." To honor the sacrifices of the Syrians thus far, the international community must provide them with the tools and means to overtake Assad.
How to Halt the Butchery in Syria, Anne-Marie Slaughter (New York Times)
(photo credit: state.gov)
Monday, January 23, 2012
US INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL POLITICS IN AN ELECTORAL YEAR (TV5)
This weekend, I appeared on TV5 Monde's JT International with Isabelle Malivoir, the channel's global newscast, to discuss the American electoral climate, the Republican primaries, and Obama's foreign policy.Some major take-away points:
- Americans are deeply concerned about the precarious economic climate. While most Americans approve of Obama the man, a majority believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. This constitutes a challenge for the president.
- For all of its success in driving the Republican primary process to the right, a growing number Americans are skeptical of the Tea Party and anticipate its impact on the Republican Party's electoral prospects to be negative. Its media visibility has not yet translated into the ability to launch a successful presidential candidate.
- Obama has turned the page in US external action and has begun to implement an intelligent and pragmatic strategic shift characterized overall by the following: redefinition of America's relationship with emerging powers (the Arab World, Asia Pacific among them); adapting to -rather than resisting- the tectonic geopolitical movements afoot; adoption of an evolving notion of an American interest and how to pursue it (depending on diverse tools, exercising available levers, and demonstrating caution and restraint in many cases.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
OBAMA ON THE DEFENSE STRATEGIC REVIEW
Earlier today, President Obama introduced the findings of the Defense Strategic Review, designed to outline both American strategic interests and its spending priorities over the coming decade while cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget. The DSR is set to flesh out approximately $500 billion in cuts, with the potential to add another $500 billion in reductions beginning in January 2013.
The President was Joined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey.
The President gave no specific figures nor did he announce the funding of any new initiatives or weapons systems. While outlining the overarching priorities going forward, Obama added that US might should be defined more comprehensively - including by its agility, flexibility, leanness, and preparedness for new challenges.
Some important take away points from the President's speech:
- Key commitments will remain: "vigilance" in the Middle East, maintained investment in NATO, strengthened presence in Asia Pacific.
- Replacement of large nation-building missions (Iraq, Afghanistan) with the reliance on smaller conventional forces coupled with the modernization of systems and capabilities reflecting future threats rather than outdated Cold War paradigms. This means funding programs geared toward intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism efforts, countering weapons of mass destruction, and gaining access to denied spaces.
- Amelioration of treatment given to veterans, opening opportunities to better health and mental health care, job opportunities, and integration back into society following their service.
- Emphasis on the need to rebalance the ensemble of national programs, restore America's internal resources and infrastructures, and begin to climb out of its massive debt - defense budget cuts are a major first step in achieving this balance.
None of these points were particularly surprising, as administration officials have been talking for weeks about these same themes, including the will to bolster American presence in Asia while scaling back the large missions that so thoroughly consumed the military since 9/11.
A number of questions remain as to what the specific cuts will look like and how they will be received and debated both within the US (and among Republican presidential candidates) and among America's allies:
For example, what will be the general reaction in Europe as the US shifts its focus to Asia Pacific? Will there be any notable change in troop numbers? What new expectations might the US have of its NATO allies given its turn to other areas of the world? What are possible areas of convergence for the US and Europe in emerging power zones? What challenges can be anticipated in the transatlantic alliance following this strategic shift?
More precise details of the Defense Strategic Review will follow in the coming weeks.
Stay tuned to Potusphere for the latest in these developments...
- Amy Greene
The President was Joined by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey.
The President gave no specific figures nor did he announce the funding of any new initiatives or weapons systems. While outlining the overarching priorities going forward, Obama added that US might should be defined more comprehensively - including by its agility, flexibility, leanness, and preparedness for new challenges.
Some important take away points from the President's speech:
- Key commitments will remain: "vigilance" in the Middle East, maintained investment in NATO, strengthened presence in Asia Pacific.
- Replacement of large nation-building missions (Iraq, Afghanistan) with the reliance on smaller conventional forces coupled with the modernization of systems and capabilities reflecting future threats rather than outdated Cold War paradigms. This means funding programs geared toward intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, counterterrorism efforts, countering weapons of mass destruction, and gaining access to denied spaces.
- Amelioration of treatment given to veterans, opening opportunities to better health and mental health care, job opportunities, and integration back into society following their service.
- Emphasis on the need to rebalance the ensemble of national programs, restore America's internal resources and infrastructures, and begin to climb out of its massive debt - defense budget cuts are a major first step in achieving this balance.
None of these points were particularly surprising, as administration officials have been talking for weeks about these same themes, including the will to bolster American presence in Asia while scaling back the large missions that so thoroughly consumed the military since 9/11.
A number of questions remain as to what the specific cuts will look like and how they will be received and debated both within the US (and among Republican presidential candidates) and among America's allies:
For example, what will be the general reaction in Europe as the US shifts its focus to Asia Pacific? Will there be any notable change in troop numbers? What new expectations might the US have of its NATO allies given its turn to other areas of the world? What are possible areas of convergence for the US and Europe in emerging power zones? What challenges can be anticipated in the transatlantic alliance following this strategic shift?
More precise details of the Defense Strategic Review will follow in the coming weeks.
Stay tuned to Potusphere for the latest in these developments...
- Amy Greene
Thursday, October 6, 2011
NEW SHIFTS IN US INTERNAL DEBATE ON ISRAEL
In recent weeks, following on the heels of the US's dismissal of the Palestinian Authority's U.N. bid for statehood, there has been growing chatter in American discourse on taking a harder line towards Israel.
Skeptics still have ample ammunition to fuel their concern that no amount of tough talk will actually translate into policy. For them, even a subtle shift in American elite opinion is a long-awaited admission of reality. But criticism has been made in the past by all levels of government and in the public sphere, with action remaining elusive.
To boot, the importance of current American electoral dynamics; staunch US domestic support of Israel; and Israeli intransigence cast doubt on Obama's desire (and ability) to summon the courage and creativity to break new ground.
Whatever the interpretation, a spate of very public remarks should not be dismissed insofar as they take direct aim at Israel's current policy and the US's complicity therein.
From the Democratic politics to the mainstream press and a left-leaning think tank, here is a rundown of some of the most visible commentary:
1. The day after President Obama's Sept 21 speech before the U.N. on Palestinian statehood, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation wrote a vivid, worthwhile piece equating Obama to segregationist whites of the civil rights era in telling Palestinians essentially to "stay in the back of the bus." He then compares the Palestinian initiative to Gandhi's embarrassment of Britain, to Israel's own path to achieving statehood, and to the hypothetical refusal to recognize Kosovo until it resolved all of its issues with Russia. In expressing his disappointment in Obama - who could have ranked among Gandhi, Mandela, or Martin Luther King -, Clemons calls the president's position "dangerous" and one amounting to the USSR losing a war of wills against Cuba at the height of its Cold War power. Lacking will and conviction, Obama risks solidifying his image as a subordinate to Netanyahu.
2. On the same day, Sept 22, former president Bill Clinton - during a panel on the Middle East during his Clinton Global Initiative in New York - blamed Netanyahu for the failure of the peace process; saying that even after receiving all requested security and other assurances, the Netanyahu government has moved further away from the consensus to move toward peace. Clinton evokes another theme, which will be repeated later by others - the demographic shift which makes the Israeli population both less amenable to peace and more in need of it.
3. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, during travels to Israel (Oct 3), warned that Israel is increasingly isolated and must seek to renew relations with Turkey and Egypt, asking "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." Highlighting the reality of dramatic shifts in the Middle East, Panetta called on Israel to make a broad effort to formalize channels of cooperation with its neighbors, lest problems be constantly taken "to the street."
4. Finally, writing in the New York Times (Oct 5), Nicholas Kristof asks and answers the question, Is Israel its own worst enemy?, saying that "Netanyahu is isolating his country" with a policy on settlements akin to "a national suicide policy." Kristof criticizes the US administration for wasting global good will by categorically refusing to support Palestine's bid for statehood, the Israeli government for its insulting response to Obama's pro-Israel speech (authorizing the construction of new settlements), and the unnecessary unraveling of relations with Turkey at the hands of Netanyahu's government. Denouncing Israel's occupation and urging it to apply democratic principles to all - including giving Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections in the territory it occupies, Kristof concludes: "Today, Israel’s leaders sometimes seem to be that country’s worst enemies, and it’s an act of friendship to point that out."
- Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in the Back of the Bus (Atlantic)
- Bill Clinton: Netanyahu Killed the Peace Process (FP)
- Panetta Warns Israel Getting More Isolated (ABC)
- Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? (NYT)
- Amy Greene
Skeptics still have ample ammunition to fuel their concern that no amount of tough talk will actually translate into policy. For them, even a subtle shift in American elite opinion is a long-awaited admission of reality. But criticism has been made in the past by all levels of government and in the public sphere, with action remaining elusive.
To boot, the importance of current American electoral dynamics; staunch US domestic support of Israel; and Israeli intransigence cast doubt on Obama's desire (and ability) to summon the courage and creativity to break new ground.
Whatever the interpretation, a spate of very public remarks should not be dismissed insofar as they take direct aim at Israel's current policy and the US's complicity therein.
From the Democratic politics to the mainstream press and a left-leaning think tank, here is a rundown of some of the most visible commentary:
1. The day after President Obama's Sept 21 speech before the U.N. on Palestinian statehood, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation wrote a vivid, worthwhile piece equating Obama to segregationist whites of the civil rights era in telling Palestinians essentially to "stay in the back of the bus." He then compares the Palestinian initiative to Gandhi's embarrassment of Britain, to Israel's own path to achieving statehood, and to the hypothetical refusal to recognize Kosovo until it resolved all of its issues with Russia. In expressing his disappointment in Obama - who could have ranked among Gandhi, Mandela, or Martin Luther King -, Clemons calls the president's position "dangerous" and one amounting to the USSR losing a war of wills against Cuba at the height of its Cold War power. Lacking will and conviction, Obama risks solidifying his image as a subordinate to Netanyahu.
2. On the same day, Sept 22, former president Bill Clinton - during a panel on the Middle East during his Clinton Global Initiative in New York - blamed Netanyahu for the failure of the peace process; saying that even after receiving all requested security and other assurances, the Netanyahu government has moved further away from the consensus to move toward peace. Clinton evokes another theme, which will be repeated later by others - the demographic shift which makes the Israeli population both less amenable to peace and more in need of it.
3. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, during travels to Israel (Oct 3), warned that Israel is increasingly isolated and must seek to renew relations with Turkey and Egypt, asking "Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena? Real security can only be achieved by both a strong diplomatic effort as well as a strong effort to project your military strength." Highlighting the reality of dramatic shifts in the Middle East, Panetta called on Israel to make a broad effort to formalize channels of cooperation with its neighbors, lest problems be constantly taken "to the street."
4. Finally, writing in the New York Times (Oct 5), Nicholas Kristof asks and answers the question, Is Israel its own worst enemy?, saying that "Netanyahu is isolating his country" with a policy on settlements akin to "a national suicide policy." Kristof criticizes the US administration for wasting global good will by categorically refusing to support Palestine's bid for statehood, the Israeli government for its insulting response to Obama's pro-Israel speech (authorizing the construction of new settlements), and the unnecessary unraveling of relations with Turkey at the hands of Netanyahu's government. Denouncing Israel's occupation and urging it to apply democratic principles to all - including giving Palestinians the vote in Israeli elections in the territory it occupies, Kristof concludes: "Today, Israel’s leaders sometimes seem to be that country’s worst enemies, and it’s an act of friendship to point that out."
- Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in the Back of the Bus (Atlantic)
- Bill Clinton: Netanyahu Killed the Peace Process (FP)
- Panetta Warns Israel Getting More Isolated (ABC)
- Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? (NYT)
- Amy Greene
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
AMERICAN POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MIDDLE EAST PEACE (LCI)
Last evening, July 11, I was a guest on Le 17/20 on French news channel, LCI. The panel was intended to focus on yesterday's meeting of the Middle East Quartet in Washington DC, but evolved into a discussion primarily about Israeli and Palestinian internal politics.
I contributed an analysis of the American political landscape with the following reflections:
--How strong is Obama's political will to press this issue? Currently on his plate: consuming debt negotiations and the early stages of the 2012 electoral cycle. Israel's defense and security is a US domestic electoral issue. Even if Obama were willing to take a harder line to transform his May 2011 speech into action, this would necessarily involve increased pressure on Israel and opening himself (and his campaign) to avid criticism from across the two-party spectrum, including from representatives protecting their own seats in their home districts.
--A closer look at US domestic opposition to the Palestinian vote this September: I signaled the resolution proposed by Reps. Cantor (R-VA) and Hoyer (D-MD), which passed the House almost unanimously (407-6), and threatens to suspend aid to Palestine if they proceed with the UN vote this September and advance toward a deal with Hamas.
--The US's inability to translate words to action: Again, no progress to speak of following Obama's speech; the loss of a widely-respected envoy (Mitchell) who failed to invest the two parties in productive dialogue; a replacement for Mitchell, David Hale, who has barely been visible on the issue; and an American administration very reticent to convene the Quartet out of almost total disbelief that it could produce any effective course of action heading into the summer.
--I suggested that Washington's paradoxical objectives (protection of Israel while maintaining access to Arab oil supplies) can often create an obstacle to developing a coherent policy in the region.
- Amy Greene
I contributed an analysis of the American political landscape with the following reflections:
--How strong is Obama's political will to press this issue? Currently on his plate: consuming debt negotiations and the early stages of the 2012 electoral cycle. Israel's defense and security is a US domestic electoral issue. Even if Obama were willing to take a harder line to transform his May 2011 speech into action, this would necessarily involve increased pressure on Israel and opening himself (and his campaign) to avid criticism from across the two-party spectrum, including from representatives protecting their own seats in their home districts.
--A closer look at US domestic opposition to the Palestinian vote this September: I signaled the resolution proposed by Reps. Cantor (R-VA) and Hoyer (D-MD), which passed the House almost unanimously (407-6), and threatens to suspend aid to Palestine if they proceed with the UN vote this September and advance toward a deal with Hamas.
--The US's inability to translate words to action: Again, no progress to speak of following Obama's speech; the loss of a widely-respected envoy (Mitchell) who failed to invest the two parties in productive dialogue; a replacement for Mitchell, David Hale, who has barely been visible on the issue; and an American administration very reticent to convene the Quartet out of almost total disbelief that it could produce any effective course of action heading into the summer.
--I suggested that Washington's paradoxical objectives (protection of Israel while maintaining access to Arab oil supplies) can often create an obstacle to developing a coherent policy in the region.
- Amy Greene
Sunday, June 13, 2010
TONY JUDT ELUCIDATES MIDDLE EAST MYTHS/MISCONCEPTIONS @ NYT
Tony Judt recently published a short but essential opinion piece at the New York Times in which he attempts to clarify six principal myths heavily represented in the typical discourse about the Middle East conflict.
While touching on the core of the matter - from the "Israeli exception" of being a democracy governed primarily by former professional soldiers, to Gaza's democratic status, and to the questions of Palestine's use of terrorism and Israel's missed opportunities - Judt refutes stale truisms to inject critical pragmatism into the discussion.
The Myths:
1-Israel is being/should be delegitimized
2-Israel is/is not a democracy
3-Israel is/is not to blame
4-The Palestinians are/are not to blame
5-The Israel lobby is/is not to blame
6-Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to Anti-Semitism
Some Highlights:
-on Israel's disproportionate responses: "Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long [...] Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.” But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. [...] Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now."
-on the Israel lobby's power in DC: "...The Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two."
-Israel as #1 threat to US security: "Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey [...] Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.
- Amy Greene
While touching on the core of the matter - from the "Israeli exception" of being a democracy governed primarily by former professional soldiers, to Gaza's democratic status, and to the questions of Palestine's use of terrorism and Israel's missed opportunities - Judt refutes stale truisms to inject critical pragmatism into the discussion.
The Myths:
1-Israel is being/should be delegitimized
2-Israel is/is not a democracy
3-Israel is/is not to blame
4-The Palestinians are/are not to blame
5-The Israel lobby is/is not to blame
6-Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to Anti-Semitism
Some Highlights:
-on Israel's disproportionate responses: "Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long [...] Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.” But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. [...] Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now."
-on the Israel lobby's power in DC: "...The Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two."
-Israel as #1 threat to US security: "Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey [...] Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.
- Amy Greene
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
AIPAC 2010: NO END TO THE IMPASSE
Hillary Clinton's speech to the 2010 meeting of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in Washington on March 22 was, with few exceptions, a conciliatory exercise that did little to chafe the Israel lobby and even less reassure skeptics of the US's role in brokering a viable peace. Without defining any concrete next steps, Clinton nonetheless affirmed her personal support of the Jewish state and described America's commitment to it as “rock solid, unwavering, enduring and forever.”
Here are some highlights from Clinton's speech to AIPAC:
- Explicit nod to the broad regional implications of Israel's refusal to change policies, including several mentions to the legitimate right of Palestinian people to thrive in freedom and peace.
- Unequivocal US support for two-state solution according to 1967 lines, stop to settlement-building, and normalization of Israel's regional relations including with Syria. Affirmed Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organizations" while calling for sanctions that "bite" against an Iran with unrelenting nuclear ambitions.
- Argued that untenability of status quo obliges Israel to change course: demographic reality does not favor Israel; technological advances make more difficult the task of protecting Israel's security through military means alone; and the status quo fuels violent extremist ideology that ultimately jeopardizes peace/security and fuels peace rejectionists' ambitions.
Following Clinton's speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Secretary Clinton then with Vice President Biden. Whatever was said during these sessions, Israeli leaders were not persuaded to change the status quo that Clinton decried in her remarks. For that same evening, before the same conference, Netanyahu categorically refused to stop construction of settlements and insisted that Jerusalem belongs to Israel. This following the "insult" of announcing new settlements during the recent visit of Biden, a staunch long-time advocate for Israel.
Netanyahu's rebuke of the US appears driven by a motivation to resist any push-back from President Obama (however mild it has now proven to be) with the hope of making him a one-term president in order to demonstrate that no US politician can stand firm against Israel nor derail its chosen policies and still remain politically viable. This is an interesting gamble given recent poll results showing Israeli public opinion favoring Obama and showing less enthusiasm for Netanyahu and his Likud party.
The US pays a tremendous amount in annual bilateral aid to be treated as such. More disappointing still is the prospect that the administration lacks the strategic vision and political courage necessary to move beyond lukewarm declarations and to apply effective pressure in the face of opposition in order to yield meaningful results.
President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are expected to meet behind closed doors at the White House on Tuesday, March 23.
- Amy Greene
Here are some highlights from Clinton's speech to AIPAC:
- Explicit nod to the broad regional implications of Israel's refusal to change policies, including several mentions to the legitimate right of Palestinian people to thrive in freedom and peace.
- Unequivocal US support for two-state solution according to 1967 lines, stop to settlement-building, and normalization of Israel's regional relations including with Syria. Affirmed Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist organizations" while calling for sanctions that "bite" against an Iran with unrelenting nuclear ambitions.
- Argued that untenability of status quo obliges Israel to change course: demographic reality does not favor Israel; technological advances make more difficult the task of protecting Israel's security through military means alone; and the status quo fuels violent extremist ideology that ultimately jeopardizes peace/security and fuels peace rejectionists' ambitions.
Following Clinton's speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Secretary Clinton then with Vice President Biden. Whatever was said during these sessions, Israeli leaders were not persuaded to change the status quo that Clinton decried in her remarks. For that same evening, before the same conference, Netanyahu categorically refused to stop construction of settlements and insisted that Jerusalem belongs to Israel. This following the "insult" of announcing new settlements during the recent visit of Biden, a staunch long-time advocate for Israel.
Netanyahu's rebuke of the US appears driven by a motivation to resist any push-back from President Obama (however mild it has now proven to be) with the hope of making him a one-term president in order to demonstrate that no US politician can stand firm against Israel nor derail its chosen policies and still remain politically viable. This is an interesting gamble given recent poll results showing Israeli public opinion favoring Obama and showing less enthusiasm for Netanyahu and his Likud party.
The US pays a tremendous amount in annual bilateral aid to be treated as such. More disappointing still is the prospect that the administration lacks the strategic vision and political courage necessary to move beyond lukewarm declarations and to apply effective pressure in the face of opposition in order to yield meaningful results.
President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu are expected to meet behind closed doors at the White House on Tuesday, March 23.
- Amy Greene
Monday, March 15, 2010
EMERGING CLINTON DOCTRINE? EARLY LOOK OF HILLARY CLINTON AT STATE
After more than one year into her self-declared one-term tenure, the place Hillary Clinton occupies in US diplomacy is unclear – and questions remain as to how she hopes to shape the office. Is it her goal to mark the American diplomatic heritage with a so-called Clinton Doctrine? Or is she exercising her functions such as to coalesce her abundant international popularity to become a transcendent figure?Sticking to the job she currently holds, we have some indications of Clinton’s foreign policy style. Early on, she embraced “smart power” as a key to revitalizing US diplomacy, and her foreign trips reflect such a policy – she often holds both high-level meetings and town-hall style events especially targeting young people and students, and namely women and girls. Obama has made this type of outreach a hallmark of his own style, too, so the grassroots approach is not strictly a Clinton innovation (though her celebrity is easily instrumentalized for this purpose). And indeed, the excitement Clinton incites during her travels proves that this approach can be successful.
Speaking of substance, there is disappointingly little to evaluate. Her colleagues at State appreciate her dedication to their internal concerns, from improving the nuts-and-bolts of agency functioning to fighting for increased funding and resources in a way past secretaries have not. Otherwise, and looking outward, Clinton is increasingly assuming the mantle of women's/girls’ rights (a lifelong commitment and political passion), advocating for gender equality grounded on an efficiency-based argument rather than rooted in a moral-imperative. It would be no surprise if Clinton dedicated her post-administration, and post-political, work to advancing progress on this front.
Additionally, appointing envoys was Clinton’s idea. After seeing how little SecStates achieve when spread too thin over too many issues, Clinton was determined assign heavyweights to manage the most demanding issue areas. But with Mitchell coming up short in the Middle East and Holbrooke’s tense relations with Afghan principals including Karzai, there are few concrete successes here to mention.
Until now, Clinton has succeeded in reinvigorating the world's perception of American power via an unrelenting global “hearts and minds” campaign. But she has neither made her mark on any one dossier nor delivered a resounding policy success (cf. failure to secure Brazilian support on Iran sanctions; the Jerusalem gaffe). Much of this is a mere question of time. But the Clinton/Obama dynamic itself may also be at play. The two former rivals will never share the seamless mutual confidence, allowing the secretary to act as proxy for the president, that made other President/Secretary pairs so successful (think Bush/Baker; Nixon/Kissinger). And by sending Biden around the world to problem-solve instead of Clinton, Obama may be signaling the limits of her power. Certainly, Obama gave Clinton full control of Foggy Bottom (including hiring decisions) – but in doing so, did he also marginalize the agency by placing it apart, making it a Clinton sphere that operates at a distance from other key power centers?
Time will tell how Clinton works to define her mandate as Secretary of State, where she will seek to score big wins, and ultimately, how her decisions will translate into imperatives for American action abroad.
- Amy Greene
(photo credit: US State Department)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
STEVE CLEMONS ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AT ONE YEAR
Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation and The Washington Note has published a piece over at Salon about the Obama administration at Year One.
Clemons argues that Obama has "demonstrated thus far more of an ability to deliver policy outcomes generated by inertia and incrementalism rather than changing the laws of political gravity, which is what he must do if he is to succeed in office."
On all major policy fronts, Obama has been "paralyzed" - siding with architects of the former financial order in order to fix the crisis of their own making; acquiescing to China rather than developing a firm US position; failing to produce a compelling incentive to Iran to abandon nuclear; and on the "defining challenge for the United States in this era" - the Middle East peace - Obama's efforts have "blown up on him" because Netanyahu succeeded in "highlighting more than Obama's enemies the limits of Obama's power abroad."
No president inherits the White House he wants, but Clemons notes how Nixon and Reagan changed "global gravitational patterns" through creative policies towards Communist China and the Soviet Union, respectively. Indeed, Obama needs to create some of the same magic quickly, preferably beginning with the Middle East peace process.
America, and the world, still want change. Now is Obama's time to deliver.
- Amy Greene
Clemons argues that Obama has "demonstrated thus far more of an ability to deliver policy outcomes generated by inertia and incrementalism rather than changing the laws of political gravity, which is what he must do if he is to succeed in office."
On all major policy fronts, Obama has been "paralyzed" - siding with architects of the former financial order in order to fix the crisis of their own making; acquiescing to China rather than developing a firm US position; failing to produce a compelling incentive to Iran to abandon nuclear; and on the "defining challenge for the United States in this era" - the Middle East peace - Obama's efforts have "blown up on him" because Netanyahu succeeded in "highlighting more than Obama's enemies the limits of Obama's power abroad."
No president inherits the White House he wants, but Clemons notes how Nixon and Reagan changed "global gravitational patterns" through creative policies towards Communist China and the Soviet Union, respectively. Indeed, Obama needs to create some of the same magic quickly, preferably beginning with the Middle East peace process.
America, and the world, still want change. Now is Obama's time to deliver.
- Amy Greene
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
THE NEW AMERICAN ARROGANCE? ALLIES' FRUSTRATION OVER OBAMA'S APPROACH
In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times, Maureen Dowd writes that the firing of White House Counsel Greg Craig, a political death caused by "a thousand leaks," "sent a chill through some Obama supporters" who saw this as the most disgraceful moment in his young presidency. Recalling Obama’s decision not to help Caroline Kennedy in her quest to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate after all she did to support his candidacy, Dowd notes that "many donors and passionate supporters are let down by Obama’s detachment, puzzled at his failure to make them feel invested when he’s certain to come back to tap their well soon enough."
This assessment holds true, too, in the foreign policy realm.
Secretary Clinton's trip to the Middle East uncovered the bankruptcy of America’s strategy while also exposing its unwillingness to challenge Jerusalem's violation of its roadmap obligations. The US's equivocal response sent a message – to rising powers, that there is as of yet no real price to challenging the US; to smaller powers, that America will defer to a so-called bigger power, even when the big power's aggressions force others to bear the costs.
In Europe, where Obamania is at its most fervent, many sense that the president dispatches others to drum up increased support (money/troops for Afghanistan, etc.) but treats the continent's leaders with contempt, disdain, or indifference. There are a growing number of signals that Obama dismisses Europe but for when it is expedient not to. Obama’s dealings with President Sarkozy are tense, despite the French president’s concerted effort to move closer to the US including through French reintegration into NATO's Central Command. Otherwise, Obama refused five times (before accepting) to meet PM Brown at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, sent Secretary Clinton to the Berlin Wall commemorations in November, and recently charged Vice President Biden with a European delegation dinner held at the White House even though Obama was in town.
Beyond Europe, similar resentments are emerging. In Eastern and Central Europe, in Asia, smaller nations in the shadows of rising or resurgent powers have aligned with America and depend on the security and economic guarantee the alliance offers. These countries worry that US rapprochement with big powers comes without any counter-demands, that its willingness to dialogue with anyone reveals few strongly-developed bedrock stances, and that its failure (or impotence) to assert itself against North Korean, Iranian, or even Israeli aggression does not bode well for future dust-ups. They perceive an exceedingly conciliatory America and fear an impending dilemma – choosing between Washington and Beijing, or Moscow, etc. – a decision that has less to do with choice, and more about the lack of it.
Obama may be the most popular guy in school, but he cannot stay that way without the support of his peers. American allies want Obama to succeed without being cast aside in a flurry of gestures designed to placate former adversaries or to avoid sparking any new tensions. Among the dangers of Obama's approach is the threat of a new American arrogance. Instead of taking its basis in the Bush-era belief in the superiority of America's values, it risks to be the result of a leader's inflated sense of personal importance and entitlement to unwavering ally support. Should Obama believe too deeply in his cult of personality and travel the world asking always for more without giving the necessary reassurances, he risks disappointing America's most steadfast partners once again - this time, the culprit will not be a president seen to have little regard for global opinion as was the case with Bush. Rather, Obama would undermine true solidarity by breaking with the very premise of his election - a return to respectful dialogue and cooperation not only with adversaries, but with all.
-Amy Greene
This assessment holds true, too, in the foreign policy realm.
Secretary Clinton's trip to the Middle East uncovered the bankruptcy of America’s strategy while also exposing its unwillingness to challenge Jerusalem's violation of its roadmap obligations. The US's equivocal response sent a message – to rising powers, that there is as of yet no real price to challenging the US; to smaller powers, that America will defer to a so-called bigger power, even when the big power's aggressions force others to bear the costs.
In Europe, where Obamania is at its most fervent, many sense that the president dispatches others to drum up increased support (money/troops for Afghanistan, etc.) but treats the continent's leaders with contempt, disdain, or indifference. There are a growing number of signals that Obama dismisses Europe but for when it is expedient not to. Obama’s dealings with President Sarkozy are tense, despite the French president’s concerted effort to move closer to the US including through French reintegration into NATO's Central Command. Otherwise, Obama refused five times (before accepting) to meet PM Brown at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, sent Secretary Clinton to the Berlin Wall commemorations in November, and recently charged Vice President Biden with a European delegation dinner held at the White House even though Obama was in town.
Beyond Europe, similar resentments are emerging. In Eastern and Central Europe, in Asia, smaller nations in the shadows of rising or resurgent powers have aligned with America and depend on the security and economic guarantee the alliance offers. These countries worry that US rapprochement with big powers comes without any counter-demands, that its willingness to dialogue with anyone reveals few strongly-developed bedrock stances, and that its failure (or impotence) to assert itself against North Korean, Iranian, or even Israeli aggression does not bode well for future dust-ups. They perceive an exceedingly conciliatory America and fear an impending dilemma – choosing between Washington and Beijing, or Moscow, etc. – a decision that has less to do with choice, and more about the lack of it.
Obama may be the most popular guy in school, but he cannot stay that way without the support of his peers. American allies want Obama to succeed without being cast aside in a flurry of gestures designed to placate former adversaries or to avoid sparking any new tensions. Among the dangers of Obama's approach is the threat of a new American arrogance. Instead of taking its basis in the Bush-era belief in the superiority of America's values, it risks to be the result of a leader's inflated sense of personal importance and entitlement to unwavering ally support. Should Obama believe too deeply in his cult of personality and travel the world asking always for more without giving the necessary reassurances, he risks disappointing America's most steadfast partners once again - this time, the culprit will not be a president seen to have little regard for global opinion as was the case with Bush. Rather, Obama would undermine true solidarity by breaking with the very premise of his election - a return to respectful dialogue and cooperation not only with adversaries, but with all.
-Amy Greene
Sunday, November 15, 2009
THE WEEK IN US FOREIGN POLICY (9-15 NOVEMBER)
AFGHANISTAN
Obama has yet to issue a decision on an Afghan strategy. There are 4 options on the table - McChrystal's “all-in” of 40,000 troops; Gates/Clinton's preferred "middle road" of 30,000 troops; a more "user friendly" option of 20,000 troops; and a fourth with no numbers attached. The "user friendly" option would surely better suit the public mood – currently 54% of the American public disapproves of escalation. The fourth option is seen as a gesture to Joe Biden, the administration's leading voice against sending more troops.
Obama has demonstrated a tendency to err on the side of meticulous decision-making rather than on speed. But as David Broder noted, sometimes any decision is better than none. Having already promised (and sent) more troops this summer, Obama demands that any further US action must be accompanied by "offramps," effective means to hand the job over to sufficiently trained Afghans.
A series of cables sent to Obama by Ambassador and General Karl Eikenberry were leaked this week, refreshing a stale debate in Washington while giving the president some additional political cover. By arguing against troop escalation (that would diminish Afghan ability to meet the challenges of a post-American Afghanistan) and by questioning both Karzai and his government’s corruption, Eikenberry returned the focus to questions surrounding the still-undefined strategy: Is the goal to capture Al-Qaeda? To root out the Taliban? Is it to bring security to the Afghan people? To battle corruption? What role for Pakistan? No consensus seems to exist around where the central focus lies.
ASIA
Obama traveled to Asia this week in a multi-stop tour of the region scheduled around the APEC summit and subsequent ASEAN leaders meeting. He also held a bilateral with Russian President Medvedev. The APEC meeting produced underwhelming results on climate change, as leaders failed to formalize a binding accord in advance of December's Copenhagen Summit.
The trip marks a milestone in US-Burma relations in which Obama and Burmese leaders sat at the same table. Though not a bilateral, Obama used the occasion to introduce direct talks to the current sanctions-heavy policy and to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. While looking for new avenues to cooperate with China, Obama and President Hu Jintao are expected to discuss the value of the Chinese currency, increasing Chinese consumption of US goods, bilateral economic relations, and human rights.
Obama also has an obligation to use this trip to reassure smaller regional allies who view America’s realpolitik approach vis-à-vis big powers with skepticism. Obama must reassure them that America will help mitigate the rise of China and uphold its security guarantees in the face of China’s rise, Russian ambitions, and North Korean proliferation. Obama must make the effort to show these smaller allies that America will not relax its commitments and thus make acquiescence to Beijing an undesired - yet necessary - political choice for these nations.
MIDDLE EAST
On Monday, November 9, Obama sat down one-on-one with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Major topics purportedly included Mahmoud Abbas' threat to quit and the consequences of a possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority on the flagging peace process. Since Secretary Clinton called Israel's nine-month suspension of new settlements "unprecedented," the White House has fought to repair the fallout from Clinton's gaffe. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called publicly for a full freeze. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns then said Israel's efforts "fall short" of their "obligations" under the roadmap. A good faith message to reassure Abbas, Burns' language is notable because Palestinians consider a settlement freeze an Israeli obligation rather than a mere “precondition.”
TERRORISM
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Gitmo detainees in civilian federal court in New York. Should problems arise in the prosecution, Obama risks backlash from politicians who do not want terrorists brought to court in their districts. The political price could be retaliation against other parts of the Obama agenda. Nonetheless, Obama's move demonstrates the administration's eagerness to bring the perpetrators to justice (Mohammed has repeatedly confessed not only to planning 9/11 but also to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl). Many critics regret this move, denouncing the possible effects of redefining the events of 9/11 as a civil crime rather than an act of war.
-Amy Greene
Obama has yet to issue a decision on an Afghan strategy. There are 4 options on the table - McChrystal's “all-in” of 40,000 troops; Gates/Clinton's preferred "middle road" of 30,000 troops; a more "user friendly" option of 20,000 troops; and a fourth with no numbers attached. The "user friendly" option would surely better suit the public mood – currently 54% of the American public disapproves of escalation. The fourth option is seen as a gesture to Joe Biden, the administration's leading voice against sending more troops.
Obama has demonstrated a tendency to err on the side of meticulous decision-making rather than on speed. But as David Broder noted, sometimes any decision is better than none. Having already promised (and sent) more troops this summer, Obama demands that any further US action must be accompanied by "offramps," effective means to hand the job over to sufficiently trained Afghans.
A series of cables sent to Obama by Ambassador and General Karl Eikenberry were leaked this week, refreshing a stale debate in Washington while giving the president some additional political cover. By arguing against troop escalation (that would diminish Afghan ability to meet the challenges of a post-American Afghanistan) and by questioning both Karzai and his government’s corruption, Eikenberry returned the focus to questions surrounding the still-undefined strategy: Is the goal to capture Al-Qaeda? To root out the Taliban? Is it to bring security to the Afghan people? To battle corruption? What role for Pakistan? No consensus seems to exist around where the central focus lies.
ASIA
Obama traveled to Asia this week in a multi-stop tour of the region scheduled around the APEC summit and subsequent ASEAN leaders meeting. He also held a bilateral with Russian President Medvedev. The APEC meeting produced underwhelming results on climate change, as leaders failed to formalize a binding accord in advance of December's Copenhagen Summit.
The trip marks a milestone in US-Burma relations in which Obama and Burmese leaders sat at the same table. Though not a bilateral, Obama used the occasion to introduce direct talks to the current sanctions-heavy policy and to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. While looking for new avenues to cooperate with China, Obama and President Hu Jintao are expected to discuss the value of the Chinese currency, increasing Chinese consumption of US goods, bilateral economic relations, and human rights.
Obama also has an obligation to use this trip to reassure smaller regional allies who view America’s realpolitik approach vis-à-vis big powers with skepticism. Obama must reassure them that America will help mitigate the rise of China and uphold its security guarantees in the face of China’s rise, Russian ambitions, and North Korean proliferation. Obama must make the effort to show these smaller allies that America will not relax its commitments and thus make acquiescence to Beijing an undesired - yet necessary - political choice for these nations.
MIDDLE EAST
On Monday, November 9, Obama sat down one-on-one with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Major topics purportedly included Mahmoud Abbas' threat to quit and the consequences of a possible collapse of the Palestinian Authority on the flagging peace process. Since Secretary Clinton called Israel's nine-month suspension of new settlements "unprecedented," the White House has fought to repair the fallout from Clinton's gaffe. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called publicly for a full freeze. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill Burns then said Israel's efforts "fall short" of their "obligations" under the roadmap. A good faith message to reassure Abbas, Burns' language is notable because Palestinians consider a settlement freeze an Israeli obligation rather than a mere “precondition.”
TERRORISM
Attorney General Eric Holder announced his decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Gitmo detainees in civilian federal court in New York. Should problems arise in the prosecution, Obama risks backlash from politicians who do not want terrorists brought to court in their districts. The political price could be retaliation against other parts of the Obama agenda. Nonetheless, Obama's move demonstrates the administration's eagerness to bring the perpetrators to justice (Mohammed has repeatedly confessed not only to planning 9/11 but also to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl). Many critics regret this move, denouncing the possible effects of redefining the events of 9/11 as a civil crime rather than an act of war.
-Amy Greene
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)