Really, I do. It’s a wonderful country, with a great many historic attractions, and the people are much nicer than myth would suggest.
I just don’t want to conduct domestic and economic policy in the United States in the same way that the French conduct domestic and economic policy in France. Neither does Veronique de Rugy:
One at a time, President Barack Obama is alienating America’s European allies. First there was the embarrassingly crude snub of Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain, who was denied the courtesy of a joint press conference with the president on his recent Washington trip and was sent packing with a disastrously cheap official gift: a DVD collection that Brown cannot even view in London. By comparison, Obama was treated like royalty in Britain at the G-20. However, the gift he presented Queen Elizabeth, an iPod loaded with Broadway show tunes, left some scratching their heads.
But if the president’s behavior toward America’s best friend is a scandal, then his treatment of the president of America’s oldest ally is an international incident. Obama has publicly snubbed French President Nicholas Sarkozy three times since being elected, and now it is coming back to bite him.
Note: I’ll be discussing this issue on Fausta’s podcast at 11:00AM Eastern time today. If you don’t have the time to listen in today, bookmark her blog and check in over there anyway.
I’ve been writing about Congress’s eagerness to violate U.S. treaty commitments by banning Mexican trucks from U.S. roads (most recently here). It’s gotten precious little attention in the U.S. press, but folks in Mexico are understandably angry that Congress voted without debate to renege on our NAFTA obligation - without even acknowledging that our own government says that Mexican trucks and truckers are as safe as those of the U.S.
Yesterday Barack Obama signed the omnibus bill, putting us formally out of compliance and giving Mexico an opening to retaliate against U.S. exports to Mexico. But just as he did with his signing statement, Obama put his hypocrisy on display by telling the Mexican government to negotiate with Congress over a replacement program!
An 18-month-old pilot program that allowed a few Mexican trucks beyond a border buffer zone died when President Barack Obama signed a sweeping $410 billion government spending bill on Wednesday. The bill barred spending on the pilot program.
“Bush probably would have given a very similar speech.”
Do read the whole thing, of course, but that line was worth highlighting. As is the following:
At the risk of heading into la-la land, I think Obama should have tipped his hat ever so slightly today to President Bush, Sen. McCain, and other Republicans who had supported the surge strategy, naming them and thanking them. Of course, there’s no telling how Iraq would look today had the surge never happened, but it’s likely that conditions would be pretty grim and that this withdrawal plan would have the smell of defeat to it, rather than the opposite, as it does.
Obama could have caveated this to death — “I opposed Bush’s decision to begin this war, I opposed how he sold it to America, I opposed the way he prosecuted it,” etc. But he could have recognized that Bush’s decision to change strategies in 2007 is in large part why the security situation in Iraq has turned around more than anyone could have hoped, why we can now begin drawing down our forces with a good measure of confidence, and why our troops now feel more and more that their sacrifice is worth it.
Not only would this have been magnanimous, it would have been smart politics. It would have acknowledged the bipartisanship that underlies the decision to begin bringing our troops home by drawing an important line of continuity through our Iraq efforts of the past two years. It would have disarmed Obama’s more hawkish critics on Iraq by conceding their point on the surge and turning it into an argument for the drawdown, which it is. And it would have shown Republicans that Obama is committed not just to a bipartisanship of style but of substance — not just being willing to recognize when the other side has valid points, but actually incorporating them into one’s own thinking.
The President should have taken Brose’s advice. He would have found much to praise in the Bush Administration’s implementation of the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy. On this issue, see also my contribution to the Arena.
This is the kind of thing one uses one’s inside voice to comment about. And if one has to speak up about it, one speaks up about it privately.
Pardon my snark, but if Leon Panetta were more versed in national security and intelligence matters–instead of merely being parachuted into a national security/intelligence position–he might have known this. And while I had hoped that his experience as White House Chief of Staff during the Clinton Administration would have been helpful in navigating these policy thickets, it would appear otherwise.
This:
Even before a gang of heavily armed men burst into his house and forcibly evicted him from his land, farming had become a hazardous business for Malcolm Clark, a 66-year old Zimbabwean who has made his living as a farmer since 1962.
During the last two years electricity shortages have made it virtually impossible to irrigate, reducing output at the 92-hectare holding north of Harare where Mr Clark cultivated a range of vegetables and seeds.
“I didn’t think I would survive,” said Mr Clark describing last month’s attack, which farmers’ organisations say forms part of a “final push” by supporters of President Robert Mugabe to drive the country’s remaining 700 commercial white farmers from their land.
Attacks and legal actions - Mr Clark was accused in September of illegally occupying the land and must appear in court to hear the eviction order against him - are on the increase.
It bears asking anew: In this context, how can any governing coalition that leaves Robert Mugabe in power be countenanced by Zimbabweans and by the international community at large? If Morgan Tsvangirai thinks that sanctions against Zimbabwe will or should go away merely because he is prime minister, he will likely have another think coming. Having the Movement for Democratic Change in power is useless so long as these land grabs–and the brutality that accompanies them–continue.
Get used to having Hugo Chavez plunder Venezuela for decades to come. If anyone thinks that he will waste time holding other popular ballot elections concerning his regime’s policy initiatives, they have another think coming. The Chavez regime will interpret this do-over election as a mandate for rule by decree. It never really mattered all that much what the people of Venezuela thought of Chavez’s policy platform, but after these most recent elections, what little power the Venezuelan people had to determine the course of their country has largely evaporated.
A great pity. Venezuela is going through a lot of turmoil right now, especially with the fall in the price of oil. It could have used a change. Too bad it won’t get one.
It involves him getting thrown into the gladiatorial pit:
Last week Giulio Tremonti, Italy’s finance minister and Mr. Geithner’s host for the weekend, gave a tart review of the Obama administration’s stimulus in a local newspaper here.
“If the problem is an excess of debt, the cure is not adding more debt, whether that debt is public or private,” he wrote in the Corriere della Sera. Italy is one of the most indebted countries in Europe. Its debt surpasses its annual gross domestic product.
The national debt of the United States, by contrast, was about 40 percent of G.D.P. at the end of 2008, but Moody’s expects that to rise to 60 percent by 2010 as a result of the recession and spending tied to the federal bailout and stimulus programs.
On Saturday, Mr. Tremonti also spoke disdainfully of the “Buy America” provision in the stimulus plan, which covers iron, steel and manufactured goods, as a political slogan. He and other ministers emphasized the importance of keeping the American economy free of protectionism.
The president of the World Bank, Robert B. Zoellick, said he told ministers this weekend how crucial it was to keep the world economy open and to avoid the protectionist policy errors of the 1930s. “The Buy American provision is very dangerous,” he said.
HopeAndChange unites the world.
Romance is in the air in Baghdad as war-weary Iraqis celebrate Valentine’s Day after a sharp drop in violence, allowing lovers to cautiously hold hands in parks and to buy gifts for their sweethearts.
Public courtship and more daring clothing for women are increasing after years of growing intolerance, perhaps signaling the Islamic dogma and conservatism that accompanied Iraq’s slide into sectarian slaughter may be losing their grip.
“You cannot imagine how happy I am today,” said Usama Abdul-Wahab Khatab, a recent university graduate nestled beside his girlfriend at a riverside Baghdad park.
Hmmm . . . a “sharp drop in violence” helped bring this about. Perhaps–just perhaps–a “sharp drop in violence” has also helped to bring about a whole host of other beneficial and positive societal changes in the country as well. Naturally, of course, this leads one to speculate on what might have caused the “sharp drop in violence” that has helped bring about all of these beneficial and societal changes, including the increased ability of Iraqis to celebrate Valentine’s Day in a state of relative peace and tranquility.
Curiously enough, the article makes no mention whatsoever of the likely causes of the “sharp drop in violence” that Iraq is experiencing. So I will make mention of them: (1) The surge; and (2) the counterinsurgency strategy. Recall that both were opposed by the President and Vice President of the United States, who have yet to admit that their stances in opposition were in error.
Back in 2007, the voters of Venezuela said “thanks, but no thanks” to a ballot proposition that would have removed term limits for Hugo Chavez, thus effectively allowing him at least a decent shot at becoming President-for life.
Now, Chavez has invited the people he ostensibly loves so dearly to see the error of their ways and reconsider:
Venezuelans are due to vote on a proposal that would allow President Hugo Chavez and other elected officials to seek as many terms as they wish.
A “yes” vote in Sunday’s referendum would allow Mr Chavez to stay in office after his current term ends in 2012.
Mr Chavez has said the constitutional amendment is needed for the future of Venezuela’s socialist revolution.
But critics say it is designed to concentrate power in the president’s hands for decades to come.
A proposal to end presidential term limits was one of a package of 69 constitutional changes narrowly rejected in a 2007 referendum.
[. . .]
Mr Chavez celebrated 10 years in power earlier this month. His current term is due to end in 2012.
“Ten years is nothing,” Mr Chavez said at a news conference on Saturday. “I don’t know what they’re complaining about.”
“On Monday I’ll wake up looking beyond 2013, and that will give me more confidence in what we’re doing.”
This is a good inside look at the efforts that were made to bring about the surge of troops and the counterinsurgency effort that helped establish the relative peace that now reigns in Iraq–and has reigned for a while now.
We have yet to hear, of course, from President Obama and Vice President Biden, who both decried and denounced the surge during their respective Presidential campaigns and during the general election. How much more successful do the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy have to be before the President and Vice President finally admit error? And with the admission of error, shouldn’t the White House admit as well that any precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would only serve to put at risk all of the gains that have been made in securing and stabilizing the country?
It’s high time for some mea culpas. We had them concerning the Tom Daschle taxcapades. We ought to have them for a far more important issue the President and the Vice President got wrong.
WHEN a group of Venezuelan women staged an impromtu protest recently by dropping their trousers in front of armed national guards, President Hugo Chavez cheekily observed that the women were obviously in need of more attention than they received from their opposition husbands.
It was a characteristically inflammatory insult from the self-styled revolutionary who once called the former president George W Bush “the devil” and has already labelled President Barack Obama “el negro”.
Next Sunday Chavez’s bombastic wit and autocratic presidential style will once again be put to the test in a second referendum on his attempts to remove constitutional limits that prevent him from becoming president for life.
After narrowly losing a similar vote in 2007, Chavez has returned with a ferocious crackdown on opposition supporters and dire warnings of plots to overthrow him and hints that evil imperialists want to take over the oil industry, which supplies 93% of the country’s export revenues.
Last week he announced that two national guard officers had been arrested after “making contacts with the United States via e-mail [and] preparing destabilising plans against the president”.
It must be interesting to make collection calls to the presidential palace in Caracas:
Venezuela’s state oil company is behind on billions in payments to private oil contractors from Oklahoma to Belarus, some of which have now stopped work, even as President Hugo Chavez funnels more oil revenue to social programs.
Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, says unpaid invoices jumped 39 percent in the first nine months of last year — reaching $7.86 billion in September. And that was when world oil was selling for $100 a barrel.
With prices plummeting by more than half, PDVSA is trying to renegotiate some contracts. But analysts say hardball tactics to reduce charges from crucial service providers could backfire by lowering Venezuela’s oil output. And foreign debt markets are reflecting jitters about Venezuela’s finances.
Pity the poor people of Venezuela who must suffer the consequences of Hugo Chavez’s incompetence.
Much of the appeal of the Obama campaign for those who supported it revolved around the contention that if the erstwhile Senator from Illinois were elected President, we would instantly see a significant improvement in relations between America and the rest of the world.
Those who believed this obviously did not take into account the possibility that the protectionism of the Obama Administration might tick a few of our allies off:
Taro Aso, Japan’s prime minister, has condemned the proposed Buy American provision in Washington’s forthcoming US economic stimulus bill as a violation of established norms of international trade.
Mr Aso’s remarks in the Japanese Diet highlight concerns among US trading partners about the requirement for US companies to use domestic steel and manufacturing products in projects funded by the stimulus bill.
The European Union has warned of possible trade litigation against the US if Washington presses ahead with the Buy American provision.
Oh, and guess what: The EU is angry too.
Thanks to this exceedingly negative reaction, it now increasingly appears that the Administration will find some way to back out of the “Buy American” provisions with something resembling intact dignity. That’s a good thing, of course. Less good is the fact that the Administration has signaled both to a domestic audience and to an international one that it is prepared to engage in economic antediluvianism and might seriously consider the implementation of harmful protectionist policies in the future.
Apparently, “Smoot-Hawley” draws blank stares of incomprehension and non-recognition in the White House these days. And the Obama Administration is supposed to be the antidote to Herbert Hooverism?
An agreement has been reached between Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai that allows the latter to join a government of national unity in Zimbabwe. The terms of the deal are . . . well . . . take a look:
ROBERT MUGABE, the Zimbabwean president, will have the power to dismiss his arch-opponent from a government of national unity even though the two men have agreed to join forces in an effort to rescue the country’s ruined economy.
Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), who will become prime minister, could be sacked for incompetence under the terms of a deal that leaves the 84-year-old president firmly in control.
There were mixed reactions to the deal in Zimbabwe. Some feared Mugabe would use Tsvangirai, 56, to extend his power. Others felt that the opposition leader would neutralise the president. One opposition sympathiser said she was “hop-ing for the best but preparing for the worst”.
The story of one’s life if one follows politics in Zimbabwe. Why Tsvangirai agreed to this monstrously bad deal is anyone’s guess. The story indicates that the deal was necessary if there was to be any chance whatsoever of Zimbabwe getting foreign aid, but what is to stop the Mugabe government from getting rid of Tsvangirai once the aid is received? Additionally, what of British and American assurances–also noted in the story–that any government which had Mugabe as the President should be ineligible for aid?
Far from being any path towards national unity in Zimbabwe, this deal seems, instead, to be a not-so-subtle way for Mugabe to consolidate his authority. No responsible member of the international community should support it in any respect.
The President who promised us that he would re-engage the world and put to the side the supposed unilateralism and arrogance of the Bush Administration has raised hackles across the world with the news that the Obama Administration is pushing for “Buy American” provisions in the new stimulus act.
Now, the Administration appears to be backtracking on this utterly protectionist proposal. And a good thing too. Because “Buy American” provisions are lousy policy and the rest of the world is mighty ticked off:
The issue may cloud Obama’s trip to Canada on Feb. 19, his first journey outside U.S. borders as president. Officials in Canada, the top U.S. trade partner, are criticizing a part of legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives Jan. 28 that requires the use of U.S.-made iron and steel in infrastructure projects.
“U.S. protectionism is about to make Canada’s recession a lot worse,” Ralph Goodale, house leader for the opposition Liberal Party, said today in Parliament.
[. . .]
The U.S. provision is “clearly against trade agreements,” and Canada would be able to file a complaint under either the North American Free Trade Agreement or with the World Trade Organization, said Simon Potter, an international trade lawyer with McCarthy Tetrault in Montreal.
So let me make up for it by noting this story, which indicates that the prospects for power-sharing between Robert Mugabe’s murderous little clique and the opposition, headed by Morgan Tsvangirai are . . . well . . . not that good:
Since a power sharing pact was signed on September 15 last year Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, have sat around the negotiating table with Southern African mediators on several occasions without managing to resolve their differences.
Talks between the leaders and Mr Arthur Mutambara, who leads a tiny breakaway faction of the MDC Harare broke up last Monday without progress.
On Friday the ruling Zanu-PF party’s lead negotiator, Mr Patrick Chinamasa said President Mugabe would not accept any of the “new demands” made by the opposition.
With a senior government source describing Monday’s meeting as “a mere formality” and a top MDC politician saying the September agreement has “already effectively collapsed”, both parties are pondering their next steps.
I was encouraged by President Obama’s willingness to address the “Muslim world” as a whole in his inaugural discussion of the need to renounce terrorism and violence and to adopt a more civilized worldview. Despite his clear understanding of the terror networks threatening civilized societies the world over, former president Bush was often reluctant to address the problem of Islamist terror by its name.
We can only hope that Obama’s message to that “Muslim world,” on the other hand, was simply phrased as it was to please his liberal/progressive base, rather than an accurate expression of his worldview. “We seek a new way forward,” Obama said, “based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
Though the far left often claims that President Bush’s policy was unnecessarily heavy-handed and reckless, the reality is that “mutual interest and mutual respect” was exactly the basis for Bush’s policy with the post-Taliban government and people of Afghanistan, the post-Saddam government and people of Iraq, and with so many others the world over.
