Grappling with the Obama Reality

For people like me — young, college-educated and politically independent “millenials” — Barack Obama was and stilll remains the college-professor-we-wished-became-president, who actually became president of the United States. His “Yes, We Can” campaign tagline and exhortation for young ones to enter public service resonated strongly, but much to the surprise of those who know my politics, I was rooting for Hilary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. It wasn’t so much a vote against Obama than a vote for Mrs Clinton. We all know who won.

Sure, there were concerns over baggage from her husband’s presidency, but she also had the experience and the verve to negotiate the murky waters of Congressional politics, an important aspect of legislative strategy. I thought Obama could have done with some more political experience as either Hillary’s vice-president or Secretary of State, which would then prepare him for a run in 2016. After all, he’s much younger than Hillary. If there were anybody more equipped to clean up the mess created by a spoilt brat who didn’t know better and allowed two wily old foxes to hijack his presidency, it was perhaps a strong and smart motherly figure who would be able to stand up to the egos that dot politics. Simply put, America needs to be rehabilitated.

Those same friends thought I was cynical for thinking that, but politics is cynical. You have to fight cynical with cynical and then somehow rise above that. Not many political progressives are capable of that because they usually get lynched by the GOP for their politics, which are easily cast as “limp” and “gutless” and therefore “bad for America” by their more hawkish opponents. Both Obama and Hillary want to rise above that, but I wasn’t sure if Obama had what it takes to move beyond cynical hell. I was enthralled by the idea of an Obama presidency, but I wasn’t too hot about the reality of it.

(more…)

Pay Attention to Burma

Photo: Flickr/Franz Patzig

The United States’ recent decision to pursue a different tack with Burma has been cited by reports to be the reason for the unusual Chinese rebuke of the Burmese over a recent border spat. According to a recent Inter Press Agency article, the recent Chinese-Burmese border bust up may have been compounded by Chinese concerns over its long-time client state’s future relations with the U.S.

Some background: This latest Chinese rebuke comes as United States has moved rather aggressively in courting Burma in the last few weeks. Following Senator Jim Webb’s trip to Burma in August, the U.S has announced a shift in its Burma policy, announcing its plan for engagement with the junta’s reclusive leaders must be part of a “sustained process of interaction.” This move, which has been strongly supported by Burmese opposition, has been quickly followed by a meeting between Kurt Campbell, assistant U.S. secretary of state for Asia and Burmese health minister, U Thaung on the margins of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. This is the first such high-level talks in more than a decade.

(more…)

On Climate Change, Resignation, Already?

Photo: Flickr/Gerald Simmons

So after much chatter, we are only finally seeing the start of the long climate-change bill fight. Senate Democrats introduced a draft of a climate bill Wednesday that suggests the legislation will include a more ambitious greenhouse gas emissions target than one passed by the House. The New York Times reports:

The measure, sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts, seeks to achieve by 2020 a 20 percent reduction from 2005 levels of carbon dioxide emissions, compared with 17 percent in the House bill, according to the 801-page draft, which circulated on Tuesday. The House and Senate bills both include a long-term target of an 83 percent reduction by 2050.

Reactions are already flowing in thick and fast, with Andrew Revkin musing about the absence of the C-word. The Senate version is called “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” while the earlier House one is called “American Clean Energy and Security Act” — in both cases, leaving out any overt reference to “climate”. Revkin acknowledges how that word lacks political traction and laments how “the economics of climate legislation still seems to matter more to many people than what a bill would do to limit environmental risk”.

(more…)

Enlightening America’s Self Interest

Photo: Flickr User Liberal Democrats

Here’s a thought: Even if you think global warming is a sham, wouldn’t the invention of environmentally friendly technologies and the reduction in our carbon emissions STILL be a politically superior thing to be doing, underpinned by a stronger moral case? Sure, the cost of adapting to climate change is immense, but for a country that likes to see itself as a global power, any domestic legislation guided by narrow self interest and a failure to engage in the global process would invariably compromise that reality — especially in a multi or unipolar global polity.

(more…)

Engagement: The More, The Merrier

It is difficult to resist drawing comparisons when two apparently non-official “rescue” missions were made in the last fortnight alone by prominent U.S. political personalities. That they were to two of the world’s most closed countries — North Korea and Burma — has invited a flurry of perspectives on how the Obama adminstration should conduct themselves in its foreign policy.

Foreign Policy’s David Roftkopf advocates caution. He says:

Webb says he was not an official emissary of the administration. Bill Clinton said the same thing. Clearly, in both instances this particular bit of diplomatic kabuki theater is transparent to all. Webb is the regional subcommittee chair on a critical Senate subcommittee, he is close to the administration, was briefed by them before his trip and promises to brief them on his return. At no time did they renounce the trip and he traveled on a U.S. government plane. His visit was official and the credit for the release of Yettaw and the potential negative consequences of the mission must accrue to the president and his team.

Personally, I think making engagement a centerpiece of a new U.S. foreign policy is a major positive development for which the administration deserves great credit. But as with any such new initiative, we need to be careful about how we approach it prior to getting all the bugs worked out. The Webb mission, even with is success in terms of securing the release of Mr. Yettaw, winning a session with Suu Kyi and engaging in a rare exchange with the leader of the regime, raises important concerns that need to be addressed if the new policy is to work to our best advantage in the future.

Key to such caution will be how much the U.S. first engages with countries that wield more influence in both countries. Diplomatic pressure cannot come from America alone, it has to be multilateral and come from other countries. China figures centrally in both cases, but more so for North Korea. The Burma case is a little harder to crack because its neighbors reportedly have business interests in the country that predate the military regime in power. Economic sanctions therefore become ineffective.

Instead, the Obama administration could do better to cajole/entice Burma’s ASEAN neighbors, India and China, to apply more sustained pressure on the military junta to accede to international norms. While ASEAN member countries maintain an official non-interference stance, international outrage and the Southeast Asian regional grouping’s belated introduction of a Human Rights Mechanism in 2007 have combined to make that untenable. This is since any failure to condemn Burma’s ridiculous treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi would affect ASEAN’s credibility.

A commitment to engagement is a great starting point, but the Obama administration could expand their notion of “engagement” to take on a more pluralistic approach to advance its foreign policy agenda.

[This first appeared on TheAtlantic.com's Politics Channel.]

Why the Latest Nigerian Unrest Should Matter More

If the Obama administration is really interested in conducting America’s foreign relations differently, it should take a deep seated interest in the situation in Nigeria right now.

The New York Times reported Nigerian security forces on Thursday confirmed the death of the leader of a fundamentalist Islamic sect in the city of Maiduguri, apparently ending a fierce five-day campaign against the group that may have left hundreds dead across northern Nigeria.

The militant group led by Mohammed Yusuf, known as Boko Haram or Taliban, wants to overthrow the Nigerian government and impose a strict version of Islamic law. It has been blamed for days of violent unrest in which hundreds of people died in clashes between his followers and security forces.

A military spokesman would not say exactly how Yusuf was killed, though it has been widely reported that he was killed after being captured. But in an interview with the BBC’s Network Africa, the Nigerian Information Minister Dora Akunyili said while she was concerned about the death and that the government would find out “exactly what happened,” Yusuf’s demise was “positive” for Nigeria.

The State Department has not commented on the Nigerian situation so far, but such alleged police violence would likely raise tricky questions when Secretary Clinton visits next week, as part of her seven-nation African swing that begins Aug. 5 in Kenya at the 8th U.S. – Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum.
(more…)

Secretary of State, not Superwoman

Reading New York Times’ David Landler’s commentary on Hillary Clinton’s first major address as Secretary of State at the Council of Foreign Relations, one gets the impression that Clinton is Superwoman repressed by her boss and nemesis in the White House.

Landler calls her speech “an effort to recapture the limelight after a period in which Mrs. Clinton has nursed both a broken elbow and the perception that the State Department has lost influence to an assertive White House.” He also situates her speech against the backdrop of the antecedent rivalry between Clinton and Obama from their bruising presidential primary campaigns last year.

What is there to recapture? Politico reported Secretary Clinton has traveled, in her first six months in office, nearly 100,000 miles visiting two dozen countries, many of them more than once – and that’s even more than two of her more successful predecessors, James Baker and Henry Kissinger in their first six-months. Besides, a successful Secretary of State is not necessarily somebody who is constantly in the limelight. Landler’s harping on the Obama-Clinton rivalry also comes across as being tired and neglects Clinton’s own competence and dynamism.

(more…)